Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearing"

See other formats


SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 03273 6481 





s/'- 





San Francisco Public Library 



on Center 
ary 
100 Larkin Street, 5t!i Floor 
San o.CA 94102 

REFERENCE BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 



A/o- j 



■ck m 



DOCUMENTS DSPT. 

FEB - 4 1997 

PUBLIC LiSRARY 



^ HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

MONDAY, JANUARY 6, 1997 
2:25 RM. 



311-R 



1 SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

10 STATE CAPITO 

11 ROOM 113 

12 SACRAMENTO, CALII 
13 
14 
15 

16 MONDAY, JANUARY 

17 2:25 P.M. 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

25 Reported by 

26 

27 Evelyn J. Mizak 

Shorthand Reporter 

28 



3 1223 03273 6481 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR JAMES BRULTE 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

YVONNE LARSEN, Member 
State Board of Education 

JOHN MOCKLER 

Association of American Publishers 

BOB WELLS 

Association of California School Administrators 



4 49383 SFPL: ECONO JRS 
75 SFPL 06/06/03 3 



Ill 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 

YVONNE W. LARS EN, Member 

State Board of Education 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Witnesses in Support: 

JOHN MOCKLER 

Association of American Publishers 5 

BOB WELLS 

Association of California School Administrators 5 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Possibility of Board Hearings Relating 

to the Break-up of the Los Angeles Unified 

School District 6 

Position on Possible Break-up of District 6 

Challenging Problem of Keeping Schools Safe .... 8 

Statement Relating to Figueroa Avenue School ... 8 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Position on Parental Choice, Vouchers, and 
Charter Schools 10 

Satisfaction with Current Procedure 

for Student Growth Assessment 11 

Two Major Things in Public Schools Which 

Need Immediate Attention 12 

Position on Ebonics 12 

Statement by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER Recommending the 
Reading of Entire Oakland School Board Resolution 
Relating to Ebonics 13 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Accomplishments during Tenure on San 

Diego Unified School District Board 14 



IV 



Tenure on State Board 16 

Tensions or Difficulties between Board 

and Superintendent Eastin 17 

Success and Funding Adequacy of Class 

Size Reduction Mandate 18 

Board Policies relating to Undocumented 

Students 19 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Role of State Board in Receivership 

Cases , Such as Compton 20 

Access to State Board for Waivers 21 

Implications of Proposition 209 23 

Motion to Confirm 24 

Committee Action 25 

Termination of Proceedings 25 

Certificate of Reporter 26 



1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

2 — 00O00 — 

3 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Our first task is the 

4 gubernatorial appointee. Miss Larsen, if you'll come on up and 

5 start us off here. 

6 MS. LARSEN: Thank you very much. 

7 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good afternoon. 

8 MS. LARSEN: Good afternoon to you. 

9 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If you have any prepared 

10 comment, please feel free to do that. 

11 MS. LARSEN: I have a few comments that I would 

12 like to make, thank you very much. 

13 Honorable Members of the Senate Rules Committee, 

14 i Chairman Lockyer, Vice Chair Lewis, Senator Hughes, Senator 

15 Ayala, Senator Brulte, I come before you today seeking your 

16 recommendation for reconfirmation by the Senate to the State 

17 Board of Education. 

18 i I've not requested a lot of letters of support 

19 from many, as I feel that the last four years of service is, 

20 indeed, a record of my service to the state. This time has been 

21 challenging, productive, exhausting sometimes, but I've always 

22 found it enlightening as well. I learn something new every day, 

23 good and bad. 

24 I've worked with three Superintendents in a 

25 positive working relationship and with the greater education 

26 community. My record is one of an expediter, a facilitator, to 

27 approach our issues with courtesy and civility. 

28 I have served as President this past year. The 



Board would like me to continue in this role. That, of course, 
depends on your decision. 

I truly believe that we are at a very exciting 
time in education; 1997 is going to be a stellar year, with 
challenges and, yes, provocative and productive things taking 
place in public education. The current working relationship and 
spirit of collaboration between the Legislature, the Governor 
and his staff, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the 
California Department of Education, along with the California 
State Board of Education, I believe, is a most positive 
harbinger of good things to come for our children in the state 
and in the nation. 

A legislative directive last year asked the State 
Board to conduct hearings throughout the state on our curriculum 
frameworks, which we did. Those were productive, informative, 
and interactive with the public, and the public approved and 
were delighted to have that opportunity for us to meet with them 
in their areas. 

The current Commission on Academic Standards has 
commenced its work. It is generating constructive dialogue and 
an action plan that is exceptionally fine. Our schedules 
overlap, so we are able to have constant interaction and to 
stay, both of us, on task to the challenges that we face. The 
public demands accountability, and it has become time for our 
statewide standards. 

For 20 years, I've been an education advocate, 
but today I am truly elated about opportunities that we have in 
education. The class size reduction that the Legislature was so 



involved with last year, giving us again the mandate for phonics 
awareness, phonemic awareness, direct instruction, and early 
innovation strategies, will make a major breakthrough in future 
academic achievement. Our Standards Commission will present 
their draft to us in October of * 97, and with public dialogue, 
we will then approve their materials in January of 1998. 

In 1995, in October, there was the first ever 
three-board meeting of the Board of Governors, the California 
State University, and the State Board of Education. In October 
of 1997, I am very pleased to tell you that there will be the 
first ever meeting of those three boards ■ — the State Board, the 
Board of Governors, California University system — along with 
the UC Regents. And we are pleased that the Regents are going 
enter that dialogue. We are looking to develop a seamless 
educational strategy so our diploma and high school tests can 
ensure entrance to CSU and to UC as appropriate, or the 
community colleges, or technical school directive if that is the 
student's desire. 

Education bureaucracies are slow to act, but the 
public is engaged more than ever in my memory, and I think that 
is a very, very positive thing. The State Board of Education is 
the one entity where any member of the state may come and have 
their say. And we are considering putting some new ideas or 
means in for continuing further dialogue, perhaps taking our 
meetings to other sites, or to have public hearings in selective 
areas on specific topics, for instance, the Los Angeles Unified 
School District question on break up, deunification, or 
whatever. 



On just a small personal note, I come from an 
immigrant background. My father was an immigrant from Sweden. 
My four grandparents were immigrants. I have a very strong 
feeling and commitment about the United States and what America 
can be as the land of opportunity. I also feel that many people 
working together can accomplish much. With rigorous, scholarly 
expectations and curriculum, we can do that and improve the 
educational opportunities for our young people. 

In addition, safe schools are a necessity. We 
must have civility on our school campuses, and we are infusing 
character education into our curriculum. I'll point out to you 
that January 13th through 17th is going to be Yellow Ribbon 
Week, and it's speaking to safe school campuses. We're 
challenging every school district in the state to try and focus 
on discipline and making our school sites safe and learning 
institutions, and not ones of discipline problems and all. We 
think this is going to be very exciting. 

I think this legislation was authored by one of 
your own, Senator Hughes. You'll see lots of yellow ribbons 
next week, and I'm sure that we will see that you all have one 
to wear as well. 

In closing, we have a Nintendo generation with 
which we are dealing with. Our students are quite different 
than they were when I was in school, or even when some of you 
were. Our new technology is absolutely so explosive and 
changing, we just need to continue to be relevant to what 
technology does provide, but we need to make technology a tool 
to help engage our teachers and empower our teachers into better 



teaching strategies and better opportunities for our young 
people to learn. 

The world is changing. Our problems are great, 
but we must turn those all into opportunities. And I want to 
continue to work to be part of that positive solution, and to 
see that the kids of California get the opportunity for better 
education. 

That concludes my opening remarks. I'll be happy 
to answer any of your questions. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me ask, are there people 
here who wish to testify? Let's do that; we'll let them do 
that. 

MR. MOCKLER: Chairman Lockyer, Members of the 
Committee, I'm John Mockler, representing the Association of 
American Publishers. 

We have worked with Ms. Larsen over her tenure on 
the Board. While we have not always agreed with her decisions, 
we have found her to be fair-minded, honest, with great 
integrity, and in the end her decisions have been based upon 
sound scientific practice. 

We strongly support her confirmation by the State 
Senate. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

Next. 

MR. WELLS: Bob Wells with the School 
Administrators Association. 

I was going to say about the same thing that 
Mr. Mockler just said, that we haven't always agreed with 



everything that Ms. Larsen has done on the Board. We haven't 
agreed with all of the actions of the Board she's presided over, 
but she has represented the kind of Board member that you want 
to work with. 

She's approached our issues with an open mind. 
She's been willing to set aside time to meet with us and hear 
our points of view, so that at least on the issues that we cared 
about in front of the Board, we felt like we had had our day in 
court. And you can't ask for a lot more than that. And on many 
occasions, we have in fact agreed, and that's even better. 

So, we would also encourage you to vote in 
support of confirmation and recommend that to the full Senate. 

I'd be happy to answer any questions. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

MR. WELLS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, are there questions 
of Ms. Larsen? Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you very much for your 
opening remarks, and thank you for the recognition of Yellow 
Ribbon celebration. 

I, too, am concerned as I was when I had the 
legislation to create Yellow Ribbon Week. But I'm also very 
interested in the fact that you're going to be having hearings 
in L.A. Unified School District — 

MS. LARSEN: That is a possibility. 

SENATOR HUGHES: — regarding the break-up. 

I was wondering, what is your position? Do you 
feel that one of the reasons that people want to break up L.A. 



Unified is not only the size, but the frustration and the 
anxiety that many parents face because of the reality that not 
many of our schools are safe enough to send our children to? 

MS. LARSEN: I think it's a combination of all of 
the above, really. 

I personally do not have a stand on whether L.A. 
should break up or not. This is a people decision. I know that 
the people are getting frustrated; they want to have an 
opportunity to have more say. That is the reason the Board is 
considering having a hearing in L.A. 

I don't know for certain that we will, but it's 
one of topics that we will be discussing at our meeting on 
Thursday of this week. The Los Angeles County Committee is 
working on an organizational meeting tomorrow, and we will — or 
Wednesday, I believe it is — and we'll have a report on what 
their findings are at that point. 

What we want to do is help facilitate the 
dialogue to ensure that whatever does transpire down the road is 
in the greater interest of the people and, of course, of the 
students. 

I think we need to look at the size of it as 
different processes and different proposals come before the 
Board for consideration. And until we know what those are, I 
really can't say whether I will be pro or con. But I do think 
they need to have the opportunity to be heard. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I think safe schools is probably 
the most challenging problem that we have faced here in the past 
few years and will be facing in the future. 



8 

And so, I want you to keep in mind as the Board 
deals with this, the reality that many of these horrible 
situations were not only in urban schools but in the suburban 
and rural areas, where we have had several incidences of 
violence in schools. 

And that's the thing that I hope does not get 
mixed up with school break ups, the locality. It's not the 
urban versus the rural or suburban. It's the parents and the 
children and the teachers feeling that they're in a safe 
environment in which to learn. 

MS. LARSEN: The little bit of testimony that 
we've already received at our statewide meetings were in 
Sacramento from people from the area have been a concern 
primarily for academic excellence. 

I think that the safe school component really has 
not been a major topic yet. That may come forth if we continue 
to have hearings and deliberations. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Then, if we are to achieve the 
goal of academic excellence, it has to be in an atmosphere in 
which children feel secure, parents are cooperative, and 
teachers are supported and supportive of the atmosphere that 
goes on in the school. 

And I say that coming from a Senate district in 
which the horrible situation took place in Figueroa Avenue 
School. That's a well-run school with a fine administrator, 
great staff, cooperative parents, but it was an unsafe 
situation. 

And so, I just wanted to put the plug in there 



for a school that has done a fine job and is recuperating from 
the tragedy, because I've recently been there, and I've been 
there on several occasions to that school. So, the school is 
probably one of the safest places in the state at this time in 
terms of public schools. 

But isn't it sad that we have to have a tragedy 
like that before a school is really made safe? 

MS. LARSEN: Indeed, it is. 

Another topic on our agenda Thursday of this week 
is a model compact that is being presented for acceptance and 
modification as different individual schools would like to do at 
the elementary level, at the junior high, and at the senior 
high. 

And one of the components that I added that I 
feel very strongly about is that there must — in addition to 
the learning, a rigorous curriculum, an opportunity for 
education, the teacher be motivational, is that the parents, the 
staff, the students all accept the facilities, the school plant 
itself, and treat it with respect and with dignity, and treat 
their fellow students with respect and dignity, and that we have 
a higher level of civility on some of our campuses than I 
currently see. 

This is one of the concerns of society that has 
really made our schools quite challenging, but that's something 
we as a populace and as a state and a nation must address to see 
that civility is part of our public education process. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator, anything additional? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you very much. 



10 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You didn't ask about Compton. 

Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: What is your position on parental 
choice/ and vouchers, and charter schools? 

MS. LARSEN: I've never been a supporter of any 
movement that I've seen to this point in time on vouchers or 
choice. 

On charter schools, I feel very positive that 
they are offering an opportunity for a school district, a 
constituency, to somewhat control their own destiny. 

We now, as of our meeting this week, will have 
118, 119 schools that are chartered as charter schools. I know 
that the original limit was 100, but we've had lots of input and 
lots of positive dialogue on continuing to name charter 
schools. In that we have 999 school districts and have 7,900 
schools, I think that to only have 118 charter schools is not 
threatening. 

I think if we can find a positive role model from 
one of these charter schools that can be replicated, and they'll 
become more of a force for really being a standard across the 
state, I think that that would be good service. 

So, I do support charter schools. I recognize 
that Assemblywoman Mazzoni last year put in place an 
accountability area, which I know had been of concern to some 
people, and certainly is to everyone, I think, that there is 
accountability. 

But I think they're going in the right direction, 
and I continue to support them. 



11 

SENATOR AYALA: So, the charter schools remain 
under the jurisdiction of local school boards. 

MS. LARSEN: Yes, they do at this point in time, 
until the legislation would change. 

SENATOR AYALA: Are you satisfied with the 
current process or procedure for student growth assessment? 

MS. LARSEN: That is an ever changing process. 
We are going to have to put in place a good statewide assessment 
system, and that is under discussion and development at this 
point in time. 

We are working on the Golden State Examination, 
which Superintendent Eastin feels very strongly about. And we 
had a presentation at our meeting last month that we want to 
have diploma really mean something at the higher level, but at 
any level, that any time a student has a diploma from 
California, it should be worthy. 

That's why I'm so excited about the conversation 
that we can continue to have between other educational 
institutions, such as the Board of Governors, and CSU, and UC, 
that we develop higher standards that we can all buy into and 
really assure that there is a strong continuum of education. 
And the Academic Standards Committee is going to help us put in 
place the stronger standards, and then from that will come the 
stronger assessment system. 

And we do need to have that available and to be 
able the showcase California's kids as improving, which I think 
they will be now that we have a stronger phonics component at 
the primary grades. I think that is also going to do lots of 



12 

things at the other end of the spectrum to help us with our 
problems with juveniles, because so many of the juveniles in the 
later years who do get into trouble are ones who cannot read. 

SENATOR AYALA: What two things in public schools 
do you think need immediate attention? What two major things? 

MS. LARSEN: One of the major things that the 
Board is focusing on this coming year is our math curriculum. 
We have a new adoption series that is coming out. 

But I think we feel both with the reading 
advisory that we put out this last year, and now with the 
legislation that has helped us with the phonics situation and 
our class size reduction, I think that we need to focus on 
really a very strong math and basic skills, but also utilizing 
the comprehensive thinking problems. We want kids who can 
think, but they also have to have a basic foundation from which 
they have the information so that they can comprehend the more 
intricate and challenging mathematical problems. 

So, really, the curriculum is the major concern 
right now. 

SENATOR AYALA: Tell us your position on Ebonics. 

MS. LARSEN: I had never heard of Ebonics. I was 
not familiar with the word until I heard it on the national news 
media. It's never been discussed at a State Board meeting while 
I've been on, or at any academic meetings at which I have been 
in attendance. 

It will probably be on our Board meeting agenda 
later this week. We did all receive a copy of the resolution. 

I feel that for every student in the State of 



13 

California, regardless of their language background/ we need to 
help them become conversant and proficient in a good, solid/ 
English-speaking language, because that is going to be their 
measure for success and part of their success in later years. 
And I think we do a disservice if we don't give them the 
strongest English-speaking background. 

SENATOR AYALA: Is that something like Spanglish? 

MS. LARSEN: I don't know. I was not familiar 
with it. They say that it's part of the slang that has become 
popular with different groups of people. 

But we've never taken any testimony on it or have 
heard about it, but I'm sure we will. 

SENATOR AYALA: Does your Board need to take 
action one way or another on that at all? 

MS. LARSEN: No. If they would ask for a waiver, 
if they would ask for a waiver of the Education Code, that is 
the time that it would come to the State Board. But we have not 
received any request from them for a waiver. 

We do deal with making policy and giving waivers 
also, but it's not in the file at this point in time with any 
request. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I recommend reading — I 
don't mean to presume you haven't — but reading the entire 
Oakland Board resolution. You'll find some entertaining 
statements. 

MS. LARSEN: I have read it, and it was 
interesting. 



14 

And it was quite different than the lady who 
authored it spoke of on national television yesterday. They 
said that her position has moved. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, they seem to not be 
changing their policy, but their public comment is different 
than what it had earlier been. 

MS. LARSEN: I'm sure we all will be watching, as 
all of you will be watching. And if they do come forward for a 
waiver, we will certainly look at it with great scrutiny. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You served for a term on the 
San Diego Unified School District Board. 

MS. LARSEN: I did. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there any particular 
accomplishment during your tenure as a Board member you'd like 
us to know about? 

MS. LARSEN: Well, I was very excited when I was 
on the Board because we put in place what I felt was a very 
strong academic curriculum for our 23 minority-isolated schools. 
And that period of time, the judge had recently recognized that 
San Diego, they felt, did have a segregation problem, but it was 
not intentional. So, we were allowed to have a voluntary 
program of racial integration. 

So, we put into place a program called 
Achievement Goals Program, which lasted for several years, and 
it was somewhat like Distar. And it evolved, as lots of things 
do evolve in the education community, into a strong phonics. It 
was basically called Distar, but had Achievement Goals Program 
as its name. 



15 

But things change. Then the ball sort of tilted 
the other way to whole language, and so some of that work, I'm 
sorry to say, did not stay in place. And I feel sincerely had 
it stayed in place, that it would have, you know, really 
corrected a lot of the scores at an earlier age, an earlier 
time. 

I did not run for re-election at that time 
because I knew that I was going to be on the National Commission 
on Excellence in Education, which issued the clarion call to a 
nation at risk about the state of America's education. And I do 
feel very positive at this point in time, bureaucracies move 
very slowly, and that was — our clarion call was issued in 
1983, and in 1996, the population is demanding many of the 
things that were put forward in that landmark report, which I 
think really engaged the American people in their concern about 
education. 

But again, education is a very, very slow moving 
bureaucracy. But I think everyone's attention is focused on the 
ball now that we do have to make some changes, and that's why 
I'm very excited about 1997-1998 being really fantastic years, 
and really establishing new benchmarks for positive education in 
the State of California. 

So, I hope with your continued good decisions 
made at the Legislature, and the collaborative efforts of all 
these groups working together, that our students are going to do 
very well in the future with the collective wisdom of us all 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You were first appointed when, 
what year. 



16 

MS. LARSEN: Four years ago. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, you served a full four 
years? 

MS. LARSEN: I served four years. I've served 
now four years and nine months. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, this is your fifth year, 
in effect? 

MS. LARSEN: Right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But both during Governor 
Wilson's tenure? 

MS. LARSEN: Yes, I was appointed by Governor 
Wilson. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, you've been there for 
Eastin -- 

MS. LARSEN: I worked very well with Bill Honig. 
In fact, Bill Honig was doing, early on, a lot of the 
performance from the National Commission. I had a positive 
working relationship with Bill. 

I had a positive working relationship with the 
Interim Superintendent, Dave Dawson. And now Delaine Eastin and 
I have very positive collaboration. I told her I would never do 
anything to embarrass her in public. If we ever have any 
problem, we would discuss it in privacy. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What problems have you 
discussed privately? 

[Laughter. ] 

MS. LARSEN: We haven't. We haven't. 

I think civility in public discourse is extremely 



17 

important, and I feel that if all of us set a very high example, 
that is one of the best lessons we can give to our young people. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There seems to be some 
tensions or difficulties between the Board and at least 
Superintendent Eastin. I only sort of see or feel remotely some 
kind of problem. What's that all about? 

MS. LARSEN: We have eleven members, and there 
are eleven unique people. Each of them comes from a different 
background. 

I think generally speaking, 99 and 44/100s 
percent of the relationships are very comfortable and are 
without problems. We have one or two members that have been 
somewhat outspoken, and I think have not gone through the 
process of alerting the Superintendent that they wanted to 
discuss doing something differently. 

I think any time we are going to change the 
strategies or the modus operandi, it is a courtesy. I know if I 
continue on and stay on as President, I will ask the Board in my 
next tenure, if they're going to present an issue that is 
different than we've had in our agenda beforehand, I'd like us 
to at least have the courtesy of seeing it the day before, or 
being told that a substitute piece of information, or list of 
candidates to be named for a math writing framework committee — 
which is what I think caused the problem — that that would be 
disclosed ahead of time so we would at least have the background 
information. 

But I think, generally speaking, that it is 
positive. I know my relationships with Delaine have been very 



18 

comfortable, and we've had no shouting matches. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What are you hearing from the 
school community about class size reduction and either its 
adequacy of funding or educational success? 

MS. LARSEN: They always would like more money. 
There's no school person that will ever ask for less. 

I've heard absolutely wonderful, positive, 
outstanding things of a lot of school districts who are finding 
the most creative ways to resolve the class size problems by 
going double track, or double session, single track, which I 
think Anaheim has a waiver before us this time. They came and 
made a presentation to our meeting that told us how they were 
trying to use their resources in a different way. 

So, I think most of them are trying to do very 
creative ways. A few of them will never be able to do it by 
virtue of the size of their physical plant. But I think most of 
them are truly excited about it and trying to find a way to make 
it work. 

I hear nothing — I would say I hear nothing but 
good optimism that they can be part of that strategy. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Funding adequacy? 

MS. LARSEN: Funding adequacy, you'll never give 
school people enough, as I said. They are always going to want 
more. And they're saying that it's helpful; they say that it 
doesn't cover the whole amount, but they're going to take it 
anyway. But always they would hope that you would find a big 
pile of money somewhere that you could help add to that 
particular area. 



19 

And I think that the Governor's budget this year 
will recommend, if I believe what I read in the paper, some more 
money for class size reduction, if you all agree to that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Our material suggests that 
there's been different Board recommendations or policies over 
the last decade or so with respect to undocumented students in 
the public schools. 

Apparently, there was some kind of statement in 
the late '80s that supported educating those students, and then 
a resolution adopted in * 93 that was the opposite. 

MS. LARSEN: I don't think we — to my knowledge, 
we have no statement that says other than we will educate every 
student who comes to school. In fact, we are not allowed, by 
law, to question anyone's legal stature whether they are an 
illegal immigrant or not. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess you would once the 
court cases are resolved? 

MS. LARSEN: Yes, if the court case changed, then 
we'd have to look at it differently. But as a school board 
member, we were never allowed to ask anyone whether they were a 
legal resident. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, that certainly reflected 
the old law, the pre-187 law. 

MS. LARSEN: The State Board has not changed that 
perspective. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Apparently in '93, Assemblyman, 
and now, of course, Senator Mountjoy had a bill that would have 
denied funding for undocumented students. And our note suggests 



20 

that the State Board supported the concept of the bill, but 
worried about its implementation. 

MS. LARSEN: I think that was discussed at the 
legislative level of the Legislative Committee. I don't think 
it was ever discussed in total at full Board. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions from any 
Members at all? Yes, Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I was trying to wait for 
everybody to have their turn. 

What do you feel the State Board of Education's 
role is in receivership cases, like in what Senator Lockyer 
alluded to, Compton? Do you have a role there. 

It's my understanding from the legislation, that 
if the local school board came up with some specific proposals, 
they would have a recourse of coming to the State Board to ask 
permission to do certain things. 

How do you feel about that role, and do you think 
that that would help to solve some of the problems of getting 
them back on target? 

MS. LARSEN: The receivership basically is in the 
purview of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. 

What the State Board can do is to be the bully 
pulpit to help articulate the concerns to the people and help 
facilitate that way, and/or if there are waivers that are needed 
in the education area. Yes, we would then act on any waivers 
that they would want that would be in some conflict with the 
Education Code. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What advice would you have for 



21 

me, as the Senator that represents that very troubled area, 
which I'm very, very concerned about. 

Do you think that you could offer them any 
relief, or any suggestions that would help them to get back on 
target? 

MS. LARSEN: Here again, I would have to work 
with the Superintendent on that because she's been very positive 
that this was her role, and that she would report to us on the 
issues. 

Again, I think as the bully pulpit, whatever we 
can do to help really motivate the citizenship and the teaching 
staff and all to be positive actors in this, and activists would 
probably be the best role. 

But as far as procedure and legal oversight, I 
don't believe we have much that we can do. 

SENATOR HUGHES: But you would not deny the 
school board an opportunity to seek the assistance of the Board 
if they wanted some waivers? 

MS. LARSEN: We'd do whatever we could within — 

SENATOR HUGHES: So that they would have access 
to you, just as they have access to the Superintendent? 

MS. LARSEN: They have access to come and give us 
a scenario of their problems at any meeting at any time. That 
is one thing; we hear from any public person or entity that 
wants to have a say about education. 

SENATOR HUGHES: But they can also come to you 
and ask for waivers? 

MS. LARSEN: Indeed, very definitely. 



22 

SENATOR HUGHES: I don't know that they know 
that. That's why I'm asking you the question. 

Would you be willing to advise them of the same? 
It's like saying we know that in our nation, you're innocent 
until proven guilty, and I don't know that the Compton School 
District knows that if they wanted a certain kind of waiver, 
that they didn't have to bother the Superintendent. They could 
come directly to the Board. 

MS. LARSEN: Well, the Superintendent has agreed 
to keep us informed. And so, at the next meeting, we can 
certainly ask her about the status of what is going on at 
Compton, and is there any way we as the Board can facilitate 
them with the waivers, with the person that she has who is in 
authority over the Compton School District. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I think that's really wonderful, 
because I think it should be a cooperative effort between the 
State Board and the Superintendent, and not all the onus be just 
placed on the Superintendent of Public Instruction to solve the 
problem. 

MS. LARSEN: We've offered to get involved, but 
she to this point in time has indicated that it was her 
oversight, and that she — you know, it was in her area of 
authority. 

But we will certainly publicly state at our 
meeting this week that if there is anyone — when we chat with 
her about Compton, that if there is any area that we can help 
her and help the Compton people to facilitate resolution of 
their problems, we'd be happy to do so. 



23 

SENATOR HUGHES: Senator Lockyer talked about the 
implications of ballot Proposition 187. 

Now, I'd like to ask you about the implications 
of Proposition 209, which hasn't received complete resolution at 
this point. 

How do you think the actions regarding 209 will 
affect the way that you function and in the whole civil rights 
area? 

MS. LARSEN: I know we all strongly believe in 
every one having a fair opportunity. 

As far as taking a position on 209, we have not. 
Until it is legally determined what our future will be in that 
area, I think the Board will not make any directives to go 
forward either one way or the other. I think we're in a holding 
pattern, waiting to see what happens. We know where all of our 
affirmative action statements are, but as far as making any 
decisions on our future activities, until there's resolution 
through the court — 

SENATOR HUGHES: Let me pick out one specific 
program that bothers me because we're still operating under the 
cloud of 209. That is the MESA Program. I've been deeply 
involved with the Math Engineering and Science Achievement 
Program administered by the University of California. And 
certainly under 209, this program would be in jeopardy. 

What are you going to do at the Board level? 
You're just going to sit back and wait for the total 
determination on Prop. 209? Or, are you going to stop the 
program now. 



24 

We have a lot of students who are really and 
truly academically involved and dependent on the MESA Program. 

MS. LARSEN: I have not heard of any effort to 
stop it at this point in time. 

I think until there is some ruling from the 
courts one way or other -- 

SENATOR HUGHES: You're not going to take any 
action? 

MS. LARSEN: We would not stop it, no, not that I 
have been informed. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Or would you on any of the other 
programs, like voluntary desegregation, Indian Education Center, 
Latino Heritage Resource Centers, Social Tolerance Resource 
Centers, et cetera, et cetera? There's a whole laundry list of 
things that are being threatened under this. 

Is the Board going to have any of this on the 
agenda until after this whole 209 situation is settled? 

MS. LARSEN: No. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? Anyone care 
to testify additionally. 

Senator Lewis, do you want to make a motion on 
this matter? 

SENATOR LEWIS: Move confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion before us to 
recommend to the Floor confirmation. If Members are ready to 
vote on the matter, call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. Senator Brulte. 



25 



SENATOR BRULTE 
SECRETARY WEBB 
SENATOR HUGHES 
SECRETARY WEBB 



Aye. 

Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 
Aye. 

Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 
SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Four to zero. 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let's leave the roll open for 
Senator Ayala when he returns. 

[Thereafter, Senator Ayala 
cast an Aye vote, thus making 
the final vote 5-0 for 
confirmation. ] 
[Thereupon. This portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 3:05 P.M.] 
— ooOoo — 



26 



CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 



I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WJJTNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
day 4*__^Li -r^-tt ■ ..,.- , 1997. 







VELYN J. M2Z 
Shorthand^Report^er 




311-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1 020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 311-R when ordering. 



tSoo 
no. 2. 



DGCUiyiPNtS dipt. 

FEB - 4 1997 

SAN FlUWOIbCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



^HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OFpALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

/3 
MONDAY, JANUARYS, 1997 

2:25 P.M. 



312-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 1997 
2:48 P.M. 



Reported by 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR JAMES BRULTE 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

CAROL J. BENTLEY, Member 
Board of Prison Terms 

RALPH R. PESQUEIRA, Trustee 
California State University 



Ill 

INDEX 

Page 



Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 

CAROL J. BENTLEY, Member 

Board of Prison Terms 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Most Challenging Aspect 1 

Proportion of Time Spent on Revocations or 
Suspensions of Parole 2 

Effectiveness of New Law Regarding Sexually 
Violent Predators 3 

Increase in Parole Revocations 4 

Possibility of Expanding Drug Treatment 

Programs 4 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Possibility of Early Release for Minimum 
Security Inmates to Make Room for Higher 
Risk Inmates 6 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Possible Expansion of Determinate Sentence 

Pool 7 

All Three Strikes Cases Fall under 

Board ' s Purview 8 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Utilization of Community Correctional Centers 
and Work Furlough Programs 9 

Position on Alternatives to Incarceration 10 

Changes in Attitude Since Service on 

Board 10 

Motion to Confirm 11 

Committee Action 11 



IV 



RALPH R. PESQUEIRA, Trustee 

California State University 11 

Background and Experience 12 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Mexican Restaurant 12 

Student Fees 13 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Father of the Year Award 14 

Motion to Confirm 14 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Possibility of State University System 
Solving Dilemma of School Districts under 
Receivership 15 

Jurisdictional Issues 18 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Providing CSU Scholarships to All High 

School Valedictorians 19 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Greatest Challenges Facing System 20 

Committee Action 23 

Termination of Proceedings 23 

Certificate of Reporter 24 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Appointees, Ms. Bentley, good 
afternoon. 

MS. BENTLEY: Good afternoon. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, what do you want to tell 
us about this whole business? 

MS. BENTLEY: Anything you'd like to know. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right. 

MS. BENTLEY: I tell people I'm one of those 
persons that went from the Legislature to prison, but I did skip 
the criminal justice system. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You don't have to say that any 
more. 

You've completed four years, right? This is your 
fifth year? 

MS. BENTLEY: No, this is my fourth. It was a 
three year — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You were filling out ~ 

MS. BENTLEY: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, this then starts the clock 
again for the new term. 

MS. BENTLEY: Right, four years. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, tell us what's most 
challenging about this job. 

MS. BENTLEY: I guess what I find, it's not too 
difficult to make the decisions that we need to make on whether 
a person is suitable or not for parole. Clearly, the people 



that we see are the worst that the state has to offer, so that 
hasn't really been a problem. 

I have found it is sometimes difficult to hear 
the horrible things that the inmates have done to get them into 
a situation where they have a life sentence. And as you know, 
we basically see murderers. It's our position, and it's my 
position, that if you've been responsible for taking a person's 
life, you have to prove to me that you're very exceptional to 
get a second chance. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right. 

What proportion of your time do you think 
addresses revocations or suspensions of parole, rather than the 
determination? 

MS. BENTLEY: Very little. The commissioners 
basically do the life hearings, and the deputy commissioners are 
the ones that do the parole revocation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, you don't have to hear 
many of those? 

MS. BENTLEY: No, but we are trained and prepared 
to do it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You delegate that to the 
deputies? 

MS. BENTLEY: But we do, on occasion, do those. 
Some of the times we're out in kind of remote locations, so 
we'll fill in when there's a need. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Have you enjoyed some of the 
fine spots around California? 

MS. BENTLEY: Yes, yes. Calipatria, Blythe. 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You really get to know the 
state. 

MS. BENTLEY: Yes, you sure do. I'm going to be 
a tour guide next, hotel recommendations and restaurants. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Sexually violent predators. I 
guess there's some effort, we have changed the law recently with 
respect to those people. It's been, I guess, a year since it 
became effective. 

How has it worked out? 

MS. BENTLEY: It's working very well. 

One thing I'd like the Committee Members to know 
is that, as I'm doing these life hearings, I see these sexually 
violent predators that had a previous history of violence and 
rape. But now they're in prison because they've murdered 
someone. 

So, I look at what we're doing with this law is 
saving some lives. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many of those have you 
heard? 

MS. BENTLEY: You mean myself, have I heard? Oh, 
gosh, I do about two thousand hearings a year, so it's kind of 
hard to say, but I've certainly seen them. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: A bundle? 

MS. BENTLEY: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: A bunch of those. 

MS. BENTLEY: It makes you kind of sick to think, 
you know, this person got let out, served a fixed time, and then 
was released, and then ended up killing someone to get the life 



sentence, with a rape involved with it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have some statistics 
regarding parole violations that just suggest that the number of 
revocations has increased from 60 percent to 68 percent in the 
last couple of years. 

MS. BENTLEY: Actually, the information I have is 
that it's averaged 50 percent in the last few years, which has 
been rather consistent. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't know what the basis is 
for this particular comment or analysis. 

MS. BENTLEY: Well crime, but they just figure, 
we don't even -- I'm sure as you know, Senator Lockyer, that a 
lot of times you'll get district attorneys where, they have 
actually committed a crime, but they just figure, we won't even 
charge them with that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's the easy way. 

MS. BENTLEY: Yes, send them back. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you see that? This would 
be a deputy that's dealing with it, not the commissioners. 

MS. BENTLEY: Right. 

The ones that I've done, as I recall they were 
drug related, possession of illegal substances. Could have been 
filed by the DA but not. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There's also a suggestion or 
question asked about whether there's a possibility of expanding 
prisoners that participate in drug treatment programs? I guess 
there's been a couple of pilots or experiments, or whatever you 
might call them. Amity is one that I recall — 



MS. BENTLEY: Right, down at Donovan. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — being discussed in the past 
that resulted in fewer people coming back to prison after they 
participated, and in previous efforts — 

MS. BENTLEY: And we have a new one at Corcoran, 
too. 

It's interesting, when I first came to the 
Legislature, that was in '88, I found that in the prison system 
we didn't have Alcoholics Anonymous even or Narcotics Anonymous. 
That's available now in all of the prisons for inmates to 
participate in. 

I'm not sure if you see many that have a 
determinate sentence participating in those, but you certainly 
do see the indeterminate sentence inmates that have drug and 
alcohol problems involved in those. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: As I recall the general 
statistics, about a third of the state prisoners are there for a 
drug-related crime, about a third for property crimes? 

MS. BENTLEY: Yeah, that strikes me as being 
about right. 

But I can tell you that most of the inmates that 
I see that come up for these lifer hearings have had a drug and 
alcohol problem in their past, and some still do in the prison. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We always wonder how they 
manage to keep supplied? 

MS. BENTLEY: I know. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess they figure out ways. 

MS. BENTLEY: I've read some incredible methods 



that they've used. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there questions from 
Members . 

Just to close on that, to the extent that you 
have the opportunity to refer people to drug or alcohol 
treatments, I'm just assuming that you use that to the maximum. 

MS. BENTLEY: Absolutely, lecture them, beat up 
on them and say, you know, if you expect to ever get paroled out 
of here, you're going to have to prove to a panel that you've 
taken the steps necessary that you're not going to go back to 
using drugs. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Okay, Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I have a question. 

We've been told that by the year 2000, we're 
going to be out of beds in the prison system. 

Is there any rethinking on the part of the Board 
about releasing those with a minimum security to make room for 
the more severe cases or higher risk? 

MS. BENTLEY: See, we're the severe cases, 
though, the ones that have got the life sentence. We're the 
severe ones. We're the violent offenders, the ones that have 
got the life sentence. 

I like to tell people when I'm telling them about 
what I do that if they were to come to the hearing with me, 
they'd write a check and say, "Keep this person there," because 
they are — they're just very dangerous people. 

So, the other ones that are serving the 
determinate sentence. 



SENATOR AYALA: I would think it would be a poor 
excuse to release some of these people that shouldn't be 
released simply because we're out of space. 

MS. BENTLEY: Absolutely. 

SENATOR AYALA: The Board has not been 
considering any alternatives to the current procedure for 
releasing inmates from the prison because of the overcrowded 
conditions we'll be facing in the year 2000? 

MS. BENTLEY: No, no, because those that are the 
less violent, the white-collar, they're serving determinant 
sentence. They're just serving their time and getting out. 

I also feel that there's some that are under the 
determinate sentence that probably shouldn't be because they 
don't have to prove to anybody if they're ready to get out. 

But no, these people you want there. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: A related issue is your own 
thoughts about whether the indeterminate sentence pool should be 
expanded? It sounded like — 

MS. BENTLEY: Personally, I believe in some 
instances it should be expanded. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How would you do that? You 
can't write a law probably, unless there's a certain kind of 
crime. 

MS. BENTLEY: Certain kinds of crimes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What would it be? 

MS. BENTLEY: I think if you've had a propensity 
for violence in the past and repeated, that we set strict 



8 

guidelines to these inmates about what they're going to have to 
do before we're going to find them suitable. 

If they haven't gotten education, they're going 
to have to get some education. If they haven't gotten a 
vocation, if this has been a robber that's committed several 
armed robberies and he doesn't have any skill when he gets out, 
you know darn well he's going to be right back in there. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, you'd get all the three 
strikes cases; right? 

MS. BENTLEY: Yeah, but I don't think I'll be 
here that long. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But those would be ~ 

MS. BENTLEY: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — in your purview. 

MS. BENTLEY: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How does the second strike 
work? I can't remember. Do you get those? 

MS. BENTLEY: No, no. See, those people that are 
getting under the strike laws, they're going to have to serve a 
whole bunch of time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the second strike under 
the general law. 

FROM THE AUDIENCE: Double the term. 

MS. BENTLEY: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So it's not indeterminate at 
all. It's determined. 

FROM THE AUDIENCE: If it's an eight-year 
crime — 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It becomes sixteen. Then 
there's one strike sexual offender population which is 
indeterminate . 

Please, did I interrupt you in the middle of a 
thought? 

MS. BENTLEY: No. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Others, anyone. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I have a question. 

To what extent are the community correctional 
centers and work furlough programs being utilized for parole 
violators, and should these programs be expanded? 

MS. BENTLEY: Particularly for those that don't 
have a propensity for violence. But, if they do have 
propensity, I don't think you want to see them in those type of 
programs . 

SENATOR HUGHES: So, they are being utilized 
well, or you don't utilize them much? 

MS. BENTLEY: It would all depend on the 
particular situation. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you think that we should come 
up with more alternatives to incarceration? Do you believe 
that once they're incarcerated, they come out a more hardened 
criminal than they were before? 

MS. BENTLEY: Not the ones that I let out don't. 
If I feel that the ones that I'm supporting parole for and 
voting to give them a parole date, they better not be a violent 
hardened criminal at the time I find them suitable for parole. 

But I'm sure that could be the case of some of 



10 

those that are serving determinate sentences. 

But I do look at the situation where it appears 
now that our crime rate is at least not expanding as it has 
been. And I think it's because we know that people are getting 
the word that there are going to be harsh penalties; that 
they're no longer going to get a slap to the wrist. 

Currently in Department of Corrections, the 
average time served by an inmate is only like 24 months. And as 
we add on to the time that people are going to be serving for 
the crimes that they commit, we're going to, I think, see a drop 
in the crime rate. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Since you've been on the Board, 
what attitudes did you have going in that have changed or have 
remained the same? 

MS. BENTLEY: Like I said earlier, and it still 
happens, I'll hear of some awful crime, and I just can't imagine 
doing that, and I think nothing can top this. Then something 
does . 

I did a lot of work in the Legislature in the 
criminal justice system, so I had kind of a feel for that, 
except I just didn't realize how really bad it is. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I know Bob Burton, John 
Burton's brother, who worked at San Quentin for a long time and 
had various jobs around the criminal justice system, I remember 
him one year saying that when he was younger, sort of the old 
days, there 'd be murderers, but they'd just like shot somebody. 
But more and more, there were just horrible mutilations and 
terrible things. That it was changed, that the quality of 



11 

misdeeds were more disgusting. 

MS. BENTLEY: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That seemed to be a trend that 
he was pointing to. 

Well, what's the pleasure of the Committee. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Move. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion by Senator 
Brulte to recommend confirming. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 

MS. BENTLEY: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good luck. 

All right, Ralph, come on up. 

I forgot to ask if anyone wanted to comment 
during that last discussion. Did I cut anybody off or miss 
somebody that wanted to mention something for the record? I 
apologize. 

Hi. 

MR. PESQUEIRA: Hello. 



12 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you want to give us a brief 
background? 

MS. PESQUEIRA: Well, I've been a Trustee now — 
I'm in my ninth year, and thoroughly enjoy the job, and find it 
to be extremely challenging. 

And even though I do run a business in San Diego, 
I sometimes feel I'd rather be working as a Trustee than working 
in my business. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How long have you had the 
Mexican restaurant? 

MR. PESQUEIRA: My family started it in August of 
1940. It's been around a couple years. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, it's been kind of almost 
go on auto pilot while you're at the meetings? 

MR. PESQUEIRA: Almost, almost. 

My wife is in the business with me, so she kind 
of keeps that one facet of management running all the time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Also, you've been very, very 
active — 

SENATOR HUGHES: Senator Lockyer, I think that 
it's incumbent upon the Members of the Committee to sample the 
cuisine so we can determine how good a business person he is. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you bring any with you? 

MR. PESQUEIRA: No, I'm sorry. 

We have catered a rather large function up here 
in Sacramento from San Diego one time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I notice you also serve on the 



13 

Zoological Society. I hope there's no connection. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. PESQUEIRA: No, but the San Diego Zoo is such 
a popular zoo and a fantastic zoo, it is a pleasure to serve on 
that board. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Tell us about student fees, 
and kind of what you see in your years there, and what your 
current thoughts and attitude might be? 

MR. PESQUEIRA: It's interesting that with 
student fees, I happen to have reread a book sometime ago. It's 
called Good-bye, Mr. Chips or Mr. Chips. 

And there was a portion in there, and of course, 
having been a Trustee, that took on greater significance, when 
the old headmaster left and new headmaster comes in, he's 
walking with Mr. Chips. And he turns to him and he says, "As 
you know, Mr. Chips, we will have to raise the fees." 

And Mr. Chips looked at him and said, "No, you 
can't do that because the purpose of our existence was to bring 
in the young men who could not afford to go to the other 
schools. If you raise their fees, you're going to be cutting 
them out . " 

I have to say that that struck home very, very 
solid because the purpose of the California State University is 
to give an opportunity to that portion of our population that 
can't get into the Loyolas and the Stanfords. And if we raise 
fees to a point we're going to cut them out, and then our 
mission has been dissolved, and we can't do that. 

So, student fees are something that we have to 



14 

keep very strongly in mind. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think you'll find a lot of 
support from most of the Senators for keeping a lid on them to 
the extent that it's at all possible. 

Are there other questions from Members? Senator 
Ayala . 

SENATOR AYALA: I'd like to ask, you were awarded 
the 1996 Father of the Year Award? 

MR. PESQUEIRA: That's right, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: How did you get that way? 

MR. PESQUEIRA: I have three daughters, wonderful 
daughters . 

SENATOR AYALA: I have three sons. Go ahead. 

MR. PESQUEIRA: Two of my daughters are married. 

SENATOR AYALA: Congratulations. 

I don't have any questions. 

SENATOR BRULTE: I'd like to move this nomination 
and also nominate Ruben as Father of the Year next year. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I'd like to bring up something 
that I asked the Trustee when I met him in my office. 

I'm very, very proud of the University of 
California and the fine research that they do. But I'm also 
extremely proud of the State University system, because they're 
the ones charged with the most difficult task of all, is 
educating our educators. 

And I told him I thought the University did a 



15 

fine job of research, and finding out what pathology is, and the 
many illnesses they're able to treat, and even physicians send 
their most critical patients to the University when they have 
given up on them as an individual practitioner. 

And I asked him if he thought there was any hope 
that the State University system could rally their brilliant 
minds and come up with a solution for districts that are under 
receivership, namely, Compton, and any other district that might 
be under receivership in the future to be able to solve the 
problem. 

I know the Superintendent of Public Instruction 
has really been working very hard on this issue, but you've got 
an army of brilliant minds whose expertise is in the field of 
education. 

And would you give me the answer that you gave me 
when I walked in for the purpose of being on the record as to 
what your commitment is, and what you think the possibilities 
are that the University system can help us in this instance. 

MR. PESQUEIRA: Speaking of the Compton 
situation, because we have three major universities right there 
that Compton students feed to, after you and I spoke about that, 
I spent a considerable amount of time just mulling it over in my 
mind. 

It's my opinion that we can take Northridge, 
Dominguez Hills, and Cal State L.A. and it's going to be my 
intent to talk to Barry Munitz and those presidents about seeing 
if we can't come up some kind of a charter program which would 
concentrate on trying to do something specifically for that 



16 

Compton area in order to ensure that those students can be 
better prepared so they don't need to have to go through the 
semesters of remedial education in the CSU. 

I think we can do that, and we can do that very 
well in light of the fact that, since we did open the remedial 
aspect and started looking at that, and one of the charges we 
gave all of our presidents was to become more involved with 
their feeder high schools, and more involved with their 
superintendents, all of our presidents have taken that very 
seriously. 

And I think you're going to see a tremendous 
change between now and 2007, when the Trustee policy kicks into 
effect. And I was the chair of that committee at the time that 
we discussed it. 

I think you're going to see a tremendous change 
where our universities are going to be reaching down and working 
in mentorships. We already have some in place. I think we're 
going to increase them. We're going to be taking more 
responsibility, and we're going to become more accountable to 
the State of California for ensuring that students are better 
prepared before they come to us. 

Some place like Compton, one of the things as I 
traveled about the state of California that kept coming back to 
me was the Compton situation. And it did leave a lasting 
impression on me. I just could not imagine a complete district 
going into a receivership as such. 

And one of the promises I made a couple of 
students at Dominguez Hills who happened to come out of the 



17 

Compton system, as they explained to me, they said, "Trustee 
Pesqueira, how can you possibly want to become firmer on what we 
need to know to get to the CSU when Compton was not teaching us 
what we needed to know? It wasn't fair." 

I made a point when I was reappointed, since the 
time was so short, I visited Dominguez Hills. And I went in 
there to talk to students. I promised them I would. I went in. 
I sat down with students, and we talked about why they weren't 
being as prepared to come into the CSU. And I had quite an 
education on the what the problem was in the Compton area. 

So, as I told you then and this morning, just a 
few minutes ago, I think it warrants a major thrust at trying to 
find out what we can do. Because whatever we do at Compton, 
we'll be able to do much easier on a lot of the other school 
districts. 

And I worked very closely with Bertha Pendleton 
in San Diego. Now, we have similar type problems with some of 
our high schools down there. But I think with San Diego State, 
with Dominguez Hills, Cal State L.A., Cal State Northridge, 
there is no reason why, as you just said, if at the University, 
the medical problems can be referred back to the students in the 
medical schools, why can't a social problem be referred back to 
the California State University? I think it can be. We're 
going to do something about that. 

SENATOR HUGHES: All right. I'm very pleased 
with your answer, but the solution is more complicated than 
pedagogy. 

For instance, I think the solution has to deal 



18 

with what levels of government take responsibility for certain 
actions. 

I had a group -- and you don't know this 
situation because it's happened since I've seen you — I had a 
group of City Council persons to come from the City of Compton 
and tell me that they have been paying for school crossing 
guards. And that that was the jurisdiction of the local school 
district, and the local school direct had run out of funds, or 
were negligent about taking care of this responsibility/ and 
they were tired of it not, and they're not going to do it any 
more. 

So, it seems as though your Political Science 
Department should look at what the politics are of a city like 
Compton that makes it so complicated. It's not just an 
education situation; it's sort of a political situation where 
people keep fighting over the jurisdiction of a group that's in 
intensive care. 

So, I'm saying to you, it's not as simple as you 
and I might believe it to be. That there are all these other 
factions dealing here in this area. I don't think one 
jurisdiction should be passing the ball back at forth, because 
ultimately, the patient's in critical care and is dying. Maybe 
you're going to have to rally some other forces, too. 

And what do you think about that? That's a tough 
question. 

MR. PESQUEIRA: I don't know an answer to that 
because I don't know what the California State University can 
do. 



19 

However , we do have students; we do have 
ambassadors. It's not something that we should put under the 
rug, that's for sure. 

To what degree we can address it, I think that it 
would be incumbent upon us to try to address it. 

I really don't know how to even respond to that. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I just want you to think about 
it. It's a tough one. 

MR. PESQUEIRA: Thank you. 

SENATOR AYALA: One more question. 

I know that we've lost a lot of top students from 
our high schools to universities and colleges in other states. 

MR. PESQUEIRA: That's right. 

SENATOR AYALA: Is there any merit to providing a 
scholarship for all valedictorians of our schools to any CSU, a 
full scholarship for four years so they can stay there that 
long, to retain some of the top quality students in the state? 

MR. PESQUEIRA: California State Long Beach is 
doing that as we speak. They have targeted — our President 
Maxson down there has made a point to target valedictorians. 
And he has been quite successful in convincing them that they 
should come to Cal State L.A. 

SENATOR AYALA: All valedictorians from our high 
schools are offered a scholarship to our University system? 

MR. PESQUEIRA: That is correct. 

SENATOR AYALA: I was not aware of that. 

MR. PESQUEIRA: That is correct. Bob Maxson 
started that. He's very proud of it. We're very proud of him. 



20 

I think that because of that, we have seen a 
slight change in the overall environment on Cal State L.A. 
because they bring in -- those students bring in an atmosphere 
that challenges all the students. 

SENATOR AYALA: That's good. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What would you consider to be 
the couple largest challenges or issues facing the system in the 
next several years? 

MR. PESQUEIRA: In one word, educating the 
population of the State of California. 

I don't mean to be flippant about that, but we do 
have a problem, as I see it, in that so many students, not only 
from the high schools but from universities as well, are not as 
well prepared as they should be when you figure the investment 
the State of California puts into their education. 

And periodically, we will have comments from the 
various business entities in the State of California, and they 
will remind us that they themselves have got to have some type 
of program just to bring students up to speed who already either 
high school or bachelor's degrees because they just don't have 
the communicating skills. They don't have some of the basic 
skills, fundamental skills that are necessary just to get into a 
job. 

I was talking to Tom Paige, President of San 
Diego Gas and Electric. And I said to him as we were 
conversing about the possibility of a Golden State Diploma, 
which Delaine Eastin and I have talked about considerably over 
the years, and basically coming up with some kind of a 



21 

threshholding, where, as you know now, we have K-3; having an 
accountability at the third grade, then expanding that to the 
5th grade, then expanding that to the 8th grade. 

And then during the high school, in conjunction 
with the California State Universities, testing the students as 
early the 11th grade so we can find out where their deficiencies 
are. Then the universities working with those students as best 
they possibly can. 

And then coming up with a possibility of a 
comprehensive high school examination similar to the New York 
State Regent's Exam, where the high school student who puts 
forth the effort necessary to get the education in order to go 
to the university, or if not to the university, just to get out 
of high school, would receive a California State diploma, 
basically called the Golden State Diploma. And it would be a 
very significant diploma. And those students who did hot want 
to put forth the effort would not receive that. 

And so, I was talking to Tom Page, and he said, 
"Well, quite frankly, Ralph, we don't hire high school students 
any more for any position." 

I thought about the number of positions that San 
Diego Gas and Electric has that really don't need to have high 
school education or college education. And yet, San Diego Gas 
and Electric has opted to go to the college diploma. 

And I'm not sure what that is telling me. As to 
the quality of the high school student, I might guess. But even 
worse, what is it telling me about the bachelor's degree that is 
being awarded, and what is the value that it has if we have a 



22 

meter reader with a batchelor's degree? 

So, I think what is the challenges not only for 
California State University but for the State of California? 
We've got to really look at how we're educating all up and down, 
and we have to have some kind of accountability, and we have to 
have standards. 

I serve now on Cornerstones, which is an internal 
group in the California State University, and I serve on the 
Committee on Standards and Assessments. One of the things we're 
looking at is higher standards, even to the point of maybe — I 
graduated, or I received my bachelor's degree from Abilene 
Christian University in Abilene, Texas, even though I entered 
the University at San Diego State. We had there a comprehensive 
examination before we could graduate, before we could receive a 
bachelor's degree. And I was in business, and that was a 
two-day examination because accounting took one full day. 

And I've been approaching the Faculty Senate 
about this idea of could we possibly come up with a 
comprehensive examination to hold the student accountable to 
what they have learned? Now obviously, we've got to be able to 
teach them in order to hold them accountable. So, I think it 
would be a double barrel if we had some type of comprehensive 
examination. 

So, I think that it's time for us now to examine 
very closely and very clearly what is coming out of our schools 
at all levels. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So quality, standards, and 
evaluations seem to be your emphasis. 



23 

MR. PESQUEIRA: Boy, yes, sir. Accountability to 
the State of California. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions. 

Is there anyone present who wishes to comment at 



all. 



Other questions from Members? 

What's the pleasure of the Committee? 

SECRETARY WEBB: We have a motion by Senator 



Brulte. 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion on it to 
recommend confirming. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 
SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 
SENATOR BRULTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 
SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 
SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good luck. 
MR. PESQUEIRA: Thank you very much. 
[Thereupon. This portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 3:31 P.M.] 
— 00O00 — 



24 



CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 



I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California/ do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in- any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

fi 

day of i^-r^^C^^ , 1997. 




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 



/ o 




a^L-, 



J. MIZAK 
Shorthand Reporter 



312-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 312-R when ordering. 



^HEARING 

. SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1997 
2:20 RM. 



DOCUMENT OBPT. 

FEB - 4 1997 

SAM FR&NCiSCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



313-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1997 
2:20 P.M. 



Reported by 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR JAMES BRULTE 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

JACQUELINE E. SCHAFER, Director 
Department of Fish and Game 

AARON READ 

California Association of Professional Scientists 

JOHN GRANT, Treasurer and Past President 
California Association of Professional Scientists 

DAVE GARDNER 

California Fish and Game Wardens Protective Association 

JOHN McCAULL, Legislative Director 
National Audubon Society 

ALAN WILHELMY 

California Striped Bass Association 

LEW PENG ILLY 

California Striped Bass Association 

BILL GAINES, Director, Government Affairs 
California Waterfowl Association 

MARK J. PALMER, Director 

Wildlife Alive/Earth Island Institute 



Ill 
APPEARANCES (Continued) 



VIRGINIA HANDLEY 
The Fund for Animals 

STEVEN G. BAKER, Member 
Board of Prison Terms 



IV 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 

JACQUELINE SCHAFER, Director 

Department of Fish and Game 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Senator Hayden ' s Letter to Committee 4 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Department's Illegal Use of Restricted 

Fees per State Auditor's 1995 Report 5 

Department Top Heavy with Administrators 6 

Special Interests that Receive Services 

but Do Not Pay Fees 7 

Refusal of Administration to Seek 
California's Full Share of Federal Northwest 
Emergency Assistance Program Funds 9 

Going after Environmental Review 

Developer Fees 11 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Difference between Central California 

and Northern California Coho Salmon 13 

Decline or Increase in Population of 

Central California Coho Salmon 13 

As Many as 10 Different ESUs for 

Steelhead Trout 15 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Allocation and Distribution of Water 18 

Possibility of New Recommendations with 

Heavier Water Flows 19 

Whales 20 

Ability of Department to Achieve Goals 

and Objectives 21 



Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Letter to Committee from SENATOR HAYDEN 
Containing 13 Questions 22 

Request for Appointee to Respond in 

Writing to the Hayden Questions 22 

Necessity to Delay Vote for One Week 23 

Ability of Committee to Consider Other 
Appointees Today 24 

Witnesses in Support: 

AARON READ 

California Association of Professional Scientists .... 24 

JOHN GRANT, Treasurer and Past President 

California Association of Professional Scientists .... 25 

DAVE GARDNER 

California Fish and Game Wardens 

Protective Association 27 

JOHN McCAULL, Legislative Director 

National Audubon Society 27 

ALAN WILHELMY 

California Striped Bass Association 28 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Effect of Recent Flooding on 

Striped Bass Population 31 

LEW PENGILLY 

California Striped Bass Association 32 

BILL GAINES, Director 

Government Affairs 

California Waterfowl Association 32 

Witness in Opposition: 

MARK PALMER, Director 

Wildlife Alive/Earth Island Institute 35 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Opposition to Governor Wilson 36 

Involvement in Endorsements and 

Political Campaigns 37 



VI 



Witness with Concerns: 

VIRGINIA HANDLEY 

The Fund for Animals 37 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Organization's Position on 

Sport Fishing 39 

Statement by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Setting Confirmation Hearing for Vote 

on January 29 4 

STEVEN G. BAKER, Member 

Board of Prison Terms 40 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Revocations of Paroles 41 

Motion to Confirm 42 

Committee Action 42 

Termination of Proceedings 42 

Certificate of Reporter 43 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Ms. Schafer, Director of Fish 
and Game, is the confirmation on clock that is the shortest or 
it's run the longest, however you want to say it. 

So, I think that Craig, at least we'd better let 
you go on to whatever your other tasks are and invite you back 
at a subsequent hearing, allow for your coronation at a future 
event . 

I hope we'll get to Mr. Baker, but I've got to 
see how the Schafer interview goes. We'll play it by ear. 

Let's start with that, Madam Director, if you'll 
come on up. We will skip the various other issues that are on 
your calendar -- reference of bills and so on -- and get to 
those tomorrow morning if it works for all Members. 

Hi. 

MS. SCHAFER: Good afternoon. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you want to start with any 
kind of comment or statement. 

MS. SCHAFER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 
Members of the Rules Committee. 

My name is Jacqueline Schafer. I was appointed 
by the Governor on February 20, 1996, to be the Director of the 
Department of Fish and Game. 

I've appeared before this Committee before, and I 
know that you're acquainted with my background, and all of you 
have that material, so I won't review my qualifications 
history. 



I just want to make myself available to answer 
questions that I know the Committee has for me. 

There are many issues that we at the Department 
of Fish and Game face. On a day like today, and like so many 
that we've had recently, floods and flood control are among the 
natural resources issues that most immediately come to mind. 
Traditionally, water resource issues are at the top of the list 
of critical environmental and economic matters that face 
California. And also commercial fishing, as well as 
recreational issues recreational fishing and hunting remain 
important and vital to California's future. 

The fiscal issues in the budget for the 
Department of Fish and Game to deal with these matters are also, 
likewise, complex. 

One of most — one of the issues that I've most 
frequently encountered as I have learned this job and become 
acquainted with the multiplicitude of issues facing this 
Department in the past eleven months has to do with the 
protection of our natural heritage of wildlife habitat. 

As this Committee well knows, since the 1991 
enactment of the California statute called Natural Communities 
Conservation Act, this state has been a pioneer in the 
protection of biodiversity through a multi-species landscape 
approach, which we believe will best achieve the goals of 
long-term species protection. 

The NCCP process, as it's called, is an 
anticipatory multi-species approach which addresses acknowledged 
shortcomings in the traditional species protection processes. 



And particularly in the coastal sage scrub area in Southern 
California, primarily in Orange County and San Diego County, but 
also in some areas of Los Angeles County, we are demonstrating 
the feasibility of this ecosystem-wide planning to protect 
hundreds of thousands of acres of wildlife habitat. 

This has overcome some of the deficiencies, such 
as the kind of critical care, emergency room-like methods which 
had resulted in disconnected patches of habitat often too 
isolated to be useful in preserving biodiversity, but which was 
the result of our previous approach. While this habitat 
supports several species listed as threatened or endangered, the 
real success of the program is that the habitat is being 
preserved for many more species that are not listed and will not 
reach the point of needing to be listed. 

We've also been using the process under the 
California Environmental Quality Act to protect habitat, and 
under CEQA, impacts to wildlife habitat must be mitigated to a 
level of insignificance before a project can be approved. 

Mr. Chairman, I would want to continue on this 
basis, but I know that you have questions that relate to this 
issue. I just want to make a point at the outset that I 
consider the protection of habitat fundamental to our mission of 
the Department of Fish and Game, not only in meeting our public 
trustee agency responsibilities, but also providing the 
opportunity for recreational hunting and fishing, which is part 
of our traditional role. It dates back to the 1870s in 
California. 

There are funding issues also that relate to our 



organization of the people that work for the Department of Fish 
and Game, whether they be our biologists, or our wardens, or the 
administrative support, to do this job and accomplish this 
mission in a successful and effective way. 

We have produced a budget request which is before 
this Legislature now, will be reviewed by the Budget Committee 
in the coming months. And I believe that it is a balanced 
approach to address our mission of habitat conservation, hunting 
and fishing recreational opportunities, and opportunities that 
are related to that found on our wildlife areas and ecological 
reserves, and also to try to improve the resource base for our ' 
people to do their jobs properly, operating expenses and 
equipment, ability to do overtime to increase our presence in 
the ocean environment, which has been neglected through budget 
reductions that we've experienced in the past, and I believe 
will start us down a road of equipping people to do the job for 
California's fish and wildlife resources in the way that the 
Legislature would expect us to do it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you for your opening 
comments . 

I think there probably are a number of 
questions. Have you seen Senator Hayden's letter that we just 
received? 

MS. SCHAFER: No, sir, I have not. I did speak 
to him last evening, and he did tell me that he would have 
questions, but I have not been privy to them until now. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: He's not here, but he has 
submitted a kind of long list of questions which, at some point, 



it might be appropriate to raise. 

But first let me ask if there are Members of the 
Committee that have questions that they'd like to begin with? 
Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Chairman, this is in 
reference to Department funding. 

There is, through license and permit fees, and 
vessel registration, monies that are restricted for specific 
programs, for instance, salmon restoration and so forth. 

My understanding is that the Department has been 
borrowing money from these funds illegally and not restoring 
them as it should be. According to the State Auditor in 1995, 
the Department of Fish and Game Report, that it had shifted 
restricted funds from dedicated accounts to fund purposes other 
than legally intended. 

Can you give us an explanation. 

MS. SCHAFER: Let me first say to you that we are 
complying with the report of the Bureau of State Audits, the 
Auditor's report, and have completely repaid any funds which 
were borrowed from the dedicated accounts with interest. 

SENATOR AYALA: That has come to a stop? 

MS. SCHAFER: The practice has come to an end, 
and those funds have been completely repaid with interest where 
appropriate. 

Furthermore, we have in place now a dedicated 
funds manager as part of our administrative staff whose job, 
among other things, is to see that those funds are properly 
administered, properly accounted for, and properly reported to 



the oversight committees of the Legislature and budget 
committees. 

Just as background, the Department's budget 
situation is very complex. We have a Fish and Game Preservation 
Fund which has 24 different accounts, one of which is the 
nondedicated portion, the larger portion of the account, and 
there are 23 smaller accounts, dedicated accounts. And it was 
the management of those smaller area accounts but which have 
very specific statutory requirements for how they are to be used 
that were an issue here. 

We've corrected all of those accounting and 
fiscal practices that were inappropriate, and I don't believe 
that there's any reason for that to happen again. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'm told that in recent years, 
the Department's been cut back on warden and biologist 
positions. At last count there were some nine deputies and 
assistant directors. Less than 20 years ago, there was only one 
deputy director and no assistant directors. 

Are you top-heavy there with administrators? 

MS. SCHAFER: There were several positions in my 
office when I came to the Department. There were people who had 
been with the Department for many years, career employees, who 
were in deputy positions. Also there were positions added by 
the Legislature by statute to administer new programs. For 
example, the Oil Spill Prevention and Response Program has both 
an administrator and a deputy administrator which are provided 
by law. Also, there are individuals who serve the Wildlife 
Conservation Board which has been in existence since the 1940s, 



and one individual is the executive director for that; the other 
is the executive director for the Fish and Game Commission, 
which is a separate entity. 

In my office, there are two deputies right now, 
and there were more. However, three individuals have since left 
the Department, and so I'm operating with two deputies at this 
point in time. The others are in the position by statute. 

I'm sorry, there are also two other positions 
that might be called deputies, I want to correct that. One is 
the assistant who handles legislative affairs, external affairs, 
including all the legislation that comes through the 
Legislature, and the General Counsel. Those two are also 
considered deputies. 

SENATOR AYALA: Two deputies? 

MS. SCHAFER: Two deputies, plus a legislative 
director and a general counsel. 

SENATOR AYALA: Is the work growing to the point 
where all these deputies are necessary? Twenty years ago, you 
didn't have any deputies. 

MS. SCHAFER: Well, I think that all of these 
people would agree that they are fully employed, Senator. And 
indeed, the number that were in my office from the time that I 
came here has been reduced by three since last February. So, 
that's just the change that has been made, and I think that we 
can operate with the level of staffing that we have now. 

SENATOR AYALA: Are there any special interests, 
for instance, the timber industry, who receive services from the 
Department that do not pay fees? They should be financially 



8 

contributing to the operation of the Department. 

Are there some special interest groups that don't 
pay fees? I mentioned the timber industry for one. 

MS. SCHAFER: There are many organizations and 
individuals that pay fees. The Department is largely fee-funded 
or we receive reimbursements from the — from departments of the 
federal or state government for activities that we provide for 
them. And also, we receive federal funds under two very 
important long-standing programs to support sport fish 
restoration and habitat for game and wildlife. 

There are services that we provide under our 
trustee agency responsibility which are not fully compensated, 
and the rest of the Department's sources of funds are certainly 
used to support those activities. 

You've touched on an issue that I believe is one 
of the key ones that I'm going to have address as the Director 
of Fish and Game, and that is finding a long-term stable source 
of funding appropriately raised to perform some of the 
activities which heretofore have not had their own dedicated 
sources of funds, or have in effect not been appropriately 
raised under the terms of the Fish and Game Code under Section 
711 of the Code, which requires that hunting and fishing 
revenues be used for hunting and fishing programs, and that 
nongame programs be raised from general fund or nonhunting and 
fishing based sources of funds. 

SENATOR AYALA: These interests will continue to 
be exempted from any fees as we go along and still get to be 
served by the Department? 



MS. SCHAFER: As we develop a source of funds 
that will finance these nongame activities, environmental 
review, California Environmental Quality Act review-type 
responsibilities, I believe that we should look at all sources, 
including those which receive a service through the timber 
industry. 

SENATOR AYALA: There's no plans to charge them 
for the work that you perform for these special interest groups? 

MS. SCHAFER: There are charges that are paid. 
For example, we do stream bed alteration agreements where an 
activity, including timber, may have an impact on the quality of 
a stream crossing, and they are compensated for it. 

But for review of the timber harvest plans, that 
is considered CEQA type of activity which is not separately 
funded at this time. 

SENATOR AYALA: I understand the Department and 
the administration refused to seek California's share of the 
federal Northwest Emergency Assistance Program monies. As a 
result, the state was awarded only $700,000 instead of the $2-3 
million that they would have received. Oregon and Washington 
have been awarded their full share of NEAP funds in excess of 3 
million each. 

Is there any reason why we didn't seek those 
funds from the federal government? 

MS. SCHAFER: As I understand the source of these 
funds, they were emergency funds that were available to three 
states in the west: Washington, Oregon and California. They 
are distributed at the complete discretion of the federal 



10 

government through the Commerce Department, and California did 
receive a share of those funds. And there's not any reason for 
me to believe that that would have been different under any set 
of circumstances. 

The Department has enjoyed support through these 
funds, and the activities that the Department is interested in 
seeing done, including habitat restoration in the northwestern 
part of the state where the timber industry has been adversely 
affected by listings and restrictions, we would like to see more 
work done. And the Governor has a watershed initiative which 
will support the kinds of restoration activities that these 
federal funds also supported in the past. 

Those federal funds, it's not a source of funds 
that we can depend on. It was an one-time, as I understand it, 
a one-time influx responding to a disaster situation. 

We now have in our budget proposal funds for not 
only the Department of Fish and Game, but the Department of 
Forestry and Fire Protection, the Department of Conservation, 
and the State Water Resources Control Board, which we believe 
brought to bear on restoring habitat in the Pacific Northwest, 
in the northwestern part of California, that would have been the 
target area for those federal funds that you're also describing. 

SENATOR AYALA: Is there any intention to go 
after these funds? Wouldn't that be equitable, to have the same 
type of funding that the other states on the West Coast have? 

MS. SCHAFER: We have often sought funds for 
activities from the federal government through Section 6 under 
the Federal Endangered Species Act, cooperative agreements with 



11 

the Fish and Wildlife Service which benefits that area, and also 
with the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

We will continue to seek federal funds. It's an 
important source of funding for the Department. To the extent 
that the Congress appropriates those funds, California will 
always seek its own fair share. 

SENATOR AYALA: The Superior Court in 1995 
authorized the state to collect Section 01 and Section 03 
environmental review developer fees. 

Have you gone after those funds? I think it's 
estimated at $6 million, 6 to 9 million annually for the 
Department of Fish and Game. Have you planned to go after those 
monies? 

MS. SCHAFER: Shortly after I was appointed last 
February, we were advised by the Attorney General to resume 
collection of those fees based on that court decision that 
you're referring to, Senator. 

We did send a letter to the lead agencies. In 
this case, the counties in particular are the lead agencies 
which have been collecting the fees under a bill called AB 
3158. We have continued to pursue collection of those fees, but 
this issue as to whether or not the assessment was a fee or a 
tax is on appeal here in California. We consider the law to 
still be in effect and are acting accordingly. 

However, I have to give the Committee some 
background. The intent of 3158 legislation was to provide 
funding for our nonhunting and fishing activities. It was 
designed to generate about $10.6 million a year. 



12 

Over the course of the early 1990s, the actual 
collections came at much less than what was anticipated. The 
best year it was $4 million, but the average was about $3.4 
million. So, to continue to be able to depend on the 3158 
program, even if it survives the court challenge, which it may 
not -- can't predict the outcome on that -- it's not the secure 
source of funding for our nonhunting and fishing activities that 
I think the Legislature anticipated it would be. 

I know that the author, Senator Costa, is 
considering making some changes and finding an alternative to 
that. And I also understand that Senator Thompson, in his 
capacity as Chairman of the Budget Committee, is also looking 
for some alternatives. 

So that, although we continue to press the lead 
agencies and try to account for those fees, over the long haul 
it is not going to be a secure source of funds, and we probably 
need to look elsewhere unless we can redesign a fee system. But 
our own view is that even then it may not be enough to run the 
program. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. I have no more 
questions. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Ms. Schafer, I've been reviewing 
Senator Hayden's letter of opposition. One of the concerns he 
spends some time talking about is coho salmon, and his belief 
that you have not done a sufficient job in protecting the coho 
salmon. 

I have two questions. One, he talks about the 



13 

federal listing of central California coho salmon as a 
threatened species. 

Can you tell me what the differentiation is 
between a central California coho salmon and a northern 
California coho salmon? Are northern California coho salmon not 
listed? What is the difference there? 

Secondly, apparently there's some division in the 
scientific community about whether or not the central California 
coho salmon is in decline or increasing in population right 
now. I'm wondering where you come down on that? 

MS. SCHAFER: Certainly, over historic time, " 
considering the populations of native fishes in California, 
there has been a decline historically. 

But the situation is that the National Marine 
Fisheries Service in October decided — they've had a number of 
what they call ecological — I'm sorry — evolutionarily 
significant units, ESUs, where they've assessed differences in 
the biology of the stocks of the coho, not only in California 
but in Oregon and Washington. And they looked at the coho as a 
whole, but divided the populations up into these evolutionarily 
significant units. 

With the information that they had — and much of 
that information was generated by the research science performed 
by the Department of Fish and Game in California — they did an 
assessment and determined through the federal Endangered Species 
Act process to list the coho in the central ESU, evolutionarily 
significant unit, but to delay for six months a decision on 
whether they would list in what they call the transboundary 



14 

ESU, transboundary being northern California/ that is Humboldt 
and Del Norte Counties, and the southern counties in the State 
of Oregon. 

That decision is still pending, and they are 
expected to be making that in the coming months. I believe April 
is the deadline on that. 

At the same time, they are also looking at the 
steelhead populations not only in California but also Oregon and 
Washington. I believe they have ten different evolutionarily 
significant units that they're examining steelhead with the idea 
some of those may need to be listed as threatened or 
endangered. 

In California, they did go ahead and list the 
central ESU as threatened and imposed what's called a Section 9 
prohibition on take of coho salmon. That will place a 
significant burden on activities in that part of the state in 
order to avoid taking the salmon. 

We would like to work with the National Marine 
Fisheries Service cooperatively to develop a long-term plan 
under Section 6 of the Federal Endangered Species Act, and using 
authority in Section 4 (d) of the Federal Endangered Species Act 
which would authorize incidental take, but also begin to restore 
those stocks of salmon in the California central coast. They 
have been depleted, and we know that a number of activities can 
be brought to bear to help in the restoration. 

One of the goals of the programs that are laid 
out in the Governor's Watershed Initiative that I spoke of 
earlier is the restoration not only of habitat to protect the 



15 

coho, but the steelheads that are possibly going to be listed, 
depending on what NMFS ' s decisions are, and also the associated 
aquatic and terrestial species that make up the entire ecosystem 
of the watersheds in the central and northern California coast. 

We think that using those tools in the Federal 
Endangered Species Act and the landscape multi-species approach 
that we're trying to take here, that I made a reference to in my 
opening statement, will provide a sound basis for conservation 
of these species and the habitats on which they depend, and 
their ultimate recovery. 

I hope that answers your question. It's a rather 
long, complicated situation, and there are going to be many 
species that will be reviewed by NMFS. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Did I understand you to say that 
there are only two of these evolutionarily significant units 
regarding coho salmon, but there might be ten different ones 
with regard to steelheads? 

MS. SCHAFER: With steelhead there are ten 
different ones in the three northwestern states that they are 
considering for listing. 

SENATOR LEWIS: How many in California? 

MS. SCHAFER: I believe five. I could be wrong; 
it could be six. And they have proposed — they have a proposal 
that they are working through now through the public comment 
process — 

SENATOR LEWIS: As a practical matter, if there 
is a listing of two of five, or three of five of steelhead, if 
you're a fisherman, do these different evolutionary units, do 



16 

they cohabitate, or they've developed differently in different 
bodies of water. 

As a fisherman, how are you supposed to know what 
you can legally take and what you can't when you break it down 
to five different or ten different units of steelhead, for 
example? 

MS. SCHAFER: Well, we would certainly, in 
connection with a Section 4 (d) agreement, develop some guidance 
on what could be taken. We would then later incorporate that in 
basically our state sport fishing regulations. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Do you need to be a biologist to 
tell the difference in those ten different types of steelhead? 

MS. SCHAFER: We will let people know by virtue 
of where the populations are located, and what segments of the 
stream that they might be allowed to have access to fish. Those 
kind of things are detailed in our sport fishing regulations 
now. 

And we certainly have taken steps to try to 
protect species that we believe would be adversely impacted by 
sport fishing, and we've restricted areas. There are in some 
places no sport fishing allowed in order to protect certain 
species and populations of species. In others, we've limited 
the ability to take. The bag limit, basically, is limited. The 
size limit is — the sizes are limited in order to avoid impact 
on the reproductive success. 

SENATOR LEWIS: How many years ago was it 
determined there were ten different evolutionary — 

MS. SCHAFER: This is a convention relatively 



17 

recently developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service in 
executing the Federal Endangered Species Act at the federal 
level. We are commenting through the regulatory process on the 
appropriateness of those designations by National Marine 
Fisheries Service, and our views will be taken into 
consideration as they fully develop their regulations. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Is it possible with better 
science that 10 years from now, we might have 100 different 
identified species of steelhead? 

MS. SCHAFER: We certainly are, with improvements 
in science and particularly in genetic improvements, being able 
to distinguish more and more between the various stocks and 
their life histories, and where they came from, and — 

SENATOR LEWIS: At what point do we reach the 
point of absurdity? 

MS. SCHAFER: I think that the thing to keep in 
mind is that by working on a watershed based approach locally, 
from the bottoms up, to identify what is really needed to 
restore habitat, I think that we can address — and we have 
plans to do this. We've developed them through our biological 
staff. 

We have a steelhead recovery plan that was 
approved earlier this year. It gives us an idea of what we can 
do when the occasion arises to improve habitat for these 
species. 

It may be something as straight forward as 
installing a fish ladder so that access to the upper reaches of 
a stream can be achieved. It may be that, if there's an 



18 

occasion to remove an old dam that's no longer used, we could 
restore access to traditional spawning areas, and thereby 
recover, you know, in each watershed, the different species. 

We think that there are opportunities, and with 
the great focus that we now have on restoring habitat and 
recovering habitat, with the opportunity we have, for example, 
under Proposition 204 in the Central Valley, we are finding ways 
to make improvements that I think are going to be instrumental 
in bringing back these populations, regardless of what NMFS does 
with respect to regulating under the Federal Endangered Species 
Act. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I was going to ask the question 
that I think you just answered about what were you doing to 
influence the distribution of water, and how it's allocated here 
in the state. 

Being from Southern California, we know we rely 
on Northern California. And you're saying from all of these 
watersheds that you have here in Northern California, you're 
thinking of how utilizing them effectively to see that this 
habitat is the restored and protected. Is that your answer? 

MS. SCHAFER: The issue of water allocation in 
the state, of course, is one of the biggest natural resource 
issues that the state faces. 

Our traditional role has been to participate in 
the State Water Resources Control Board's water rights 
allocation process. It's a regulatory process. And we will do 
that and we'll continue to do that. 

But over time, and I believe really we reached a, 



19 

pardon the pun, a watershed in the way we've approached this in 
the Bay-Delta Accord that was executed here in California in 
1992. That is, the federal government and the state government, 
all of the agencies responsible for not only providing water but 
also protecting fish and wildlife habitat, and the private 
sector, have come together in a process called the Cal-fed 
process, which I believe is making some excellent strides in 
developing long-term plans to resolve the water issues in terms 
of allocation and habitat restoration in California. 

It is an unprecedented kind of activity that has 
a lot of promise, and we are certainly participating fully in 
that as a member of that Cal-fed process, both at the technical 
level and the policy level. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you have any plans for doing 
anything different now that we've got more water than we know 
what to do with? And you certainly have goals and objectives 
that you need to reach. 

Are you going to make any new recommendations 
where the flow is heavy and getting heavier? 

MS. SCHAFER: Where fish are concerned, I know 
this is probably not a day to say it, but more water is better 
in general over the long term. So, we are benefitting 
significantly by the increases in water and the water experience 
that we've had here for the past three years. 

We've got some other problems to deal with in 
terms of containing it and controlling that, and we're certainly 
addressing that as well. 

We'll take advantage of the improvements in water 



20 

flow that will result from three consecutive years of good water 
in terms of doing this kind of habitat restoration and fisheries 
stock restoration throughout the Central Valley, both in the 
Sacramento Valley and in the San Joaquin Valley. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Now, I'm going to ask a really 
dumb question. Why are we getting all the whales now? How do 
you account for that? What is happening, and are you going to 
be involved in that at all? 

MS. SCHAFER: Well, the National Marine Fisheries 
Service does have authority over Marine mammals. So, many of 
those issues are being addressed at the federal level. 

To the extent that they show up on the California 
coast, as you know that very successful story where Sea World 
was able to recover the baby whale, and it seems to be doing 
very well there; although obviously, if it's going to grow 
whatever it was, 260 pounds in a couple of weeks, it's not going 
to survive long in even the best of private entity's captivity. 
But they've got some plans for that as well, as I understand 
it. 

We certainly are involved in protecting and 
working with the National Marine Fisheries Service. And our 
budget proposal has a recommendation in there that we 
participate with them in protection of marine mammals and other 
species in connection with routine fishing activities. We want 
to make sure that those are not compatible. And so, we do play 
a role with the federal government, and we certainly are working 
with the private institutions that have done such good work in 
terms of marine restoration. 



21 

SENATOR HUGHES: So, you think that the 
partnership that you have now with the private institutions and 
the federal government is sufficient enough to reach your goals 
and objectives? 

MS. SCHAFER: I think that there are always 
opportunities that we should be out there pursuing, but I think 
that we have a good track record of cooperation. Given the 
enormous resources that are going to be needed to address marine 
issue in general, the more partnerships and joint ventures that 
we can forge, the better off we are, more resources can be 
brought to bear in an efficient way, and, I think, in an 
effective way. 

Multiplicity of responsibilities among government 
agencies out there needs to be coordinated, and I think we would 
all be better off if it were. So, we will pursue those, but I'm 
confident that we're on the right track. 

SENATOR HUGHES: In other words, you think it's 
flowing in the right direction, I mean, to make your job easier? 

MS. SCHAFER: There's so many examples that I 
could bring up in response. 

Under the Oil Spill Prevention and Response 
statute that passed in 1990, we have a program now that has been 
working cooperatively all up and down the California coast, 
dealing with the restoration and saving of marine mammals that 
might have encountered an oil spill or a problem along those 
lines. And that's all done in cooperation with the private 
sector. We help provide financial support for those, and we're 
in process of constructing a veterinary — wildlife veterinary 



22 

facility in Santa Cruz that will be state-of-the-art. These 
are -- these institutions have been established in the last five 
or six years up and down is the coast. We're in better shape 
than ever to be able to respond to adverse impacts on marine 
mammals and the marine environment. 

That's just an example of some of the good news 
that we have experienced in the last few years. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I have some thoughts about 
process, and I apologize for the fact that many, many weeks ago 
I promised to go to Los Angeles this afternoon. I wonder when 
you do it why I agreed to that then, but as is the best 
explanation of all human folly, it seemed like good idea at the 
time. So, I apologize for having to leave. 

I note that we have a letter from Senator 
Hayden. Since he chairs at least one of the policy committees 
that's most relevant in this area, he has commentary and 13 
questions. 

I'm thinking that maybe the best way to deal with 
that would be to ask you, perhaps, to respond in writing to 
them. It's sort of unfair, I think, to pop that in front of you 
in the midst of a hearing without any opportunity. Though 
you've been very quick to respond to Member's questions with 
considerable detail, it just seems more appropriate to do it 
that way. Perhaps I could give you those, and you've got them, 
I believe. 

I think the Members of the Committee have asked 
the questions that they had intended to ask. There are some 



23 

that I have, but they're sort of covered by the statement in 
front of you from Senator Hayden. So, it would be duplicative 
to do it orally and in writing. 

I thought we could take any testimony from 
people. I know there are some groups present that would like to 
get on the record as reflecting their position. And then, 
assuming that you can turn around responses in a short amount of 
time, we can reschedule it for next week or the week after 
that. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Senator, in terms of the 
process, would the completion of the questionnaire, the 
so-called Hayden questionnaire by Ms. Schafer, would that 
conclude the Committee's questioning? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It may be there'll be some 
questions that the arise in response to those answers or 
something, so we'll probably have to schedule some at least 
brief opportunity to follow up on some of the matters. 

Just so it's not confusing or misleading to 
anyone, it's my expectation that the Director will be 
confirmed. But I think it's fair to have a thorough public 
discussion of the numerous issues that have been raised. 

Since it's a little unfair to plop this on you 
and expect a response, I think it's a better way to do it. I'd 
also like to read or hear them personally. 

But if the Vice Chair will continue just to make 
sure we get any witnesses on the record, if there are other 
things you haven't commented on that you want to get on the 
record, Ms. Schafer, I want you to be able to do that, too, or 



24 

if you hear something from a witness to which you'd wish to 
respond. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Another question in terms of 
timing. 

If we're two weeks away then from our next 
hearing, would it be appropriate to take up Mr. Brown or Mr. 
Baker today? Since Mr. Brown has been the Director of Finance, 
the state hasn't been in debt. I think that's a good thing. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Actually, they may be wrong 
about that. 

They have plenty of time on the clock, though. 
So, we have a little more time with them. 

If the Committee is able to consider Mr. Baker 
today, I think that would be appropriate. There are probably 
some who wish to comment and testify with respect to that 
matter, too. 

Senator Lewis, if you could. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Let us proceed. At this point 
I'd like to invite up anybody who'd like to testify in behalf of 
Ms. Schafer's confirmation. Let's begin with Mr. Read. 

MR. READ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. 
Aaron Read representing the California Association of 
Professional Scientists. 

It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you 
our past President of the Association and a marine biologist 
himself, Mr. John Grant, who works in the Department, is 
intimately familiar with things in the Department of Fish and 
Game. So, I would like to introduce Mr. Grant. 



25 

SENATOR LEWIS: Welcome. 

MR. GRANT: Thank you, Aaron, and thank you, 
Senators for letting me speak here today. 

As Aaron said, I've been a past President of CAPS 
three times. I'm currently Treasurer. I've been at Fish and 
Game for 25 years, mostly as a marine biologist. I'm currently 
in the Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response in Southern 
California, Los Angeles and Orange Counties, working on 
environmental response to spills in those areas. 

CAPS represents 2500 employees in 29 departments 
throughout the state; 350 of those employees are in Fish and 
Game, and I'm proud to say I'm one of those. 

I'm not proud to say that in the last ten years, 
Fish and Game has basically abrogated its responsibility to the 
resource, the people of California, and its responsibilities 
under the Constitution. We've lost habitat, resource. We have 
mismanaged the marine resources to the point where we have 
declining stocks across the board. 

My colleagues, the game wardens, don't have 
vessels to go out and patrol in. They have no gas to run their 
patrol vehicles in. We have systematically recently dismantled 
the Environmental Services Division, which is charged with 
protecting the environment that's important California. 

I think perhaps the most important reason for 
that is that the management of Fish and Game for the last number 
of years has become one of yes-men and people — and I say men 
advisedly, because there 've been darn few women in Fish and Game 
in management until recently. But basically, Fish and Game 



26 

management has not been one to ask the hard questions or answer 
the hard answers. 

I think if you asked the Fish and Game what's 
wrong with them, the managers, they would say that it's unfunded 
legislative mandates; it's your fault. It's the fact that the 
license-buying public aren't buying licenses; it's the public's 
fault. And morale is so bad; it's our fault. 

That isn't the answer. The answer is that if 
they got out there and did the job more selectively and harder, 
we'd do a better job managing our resources. 

During my time in CAPS, we have sued the 
Department four times in court about environmental and work 
issues. We've been successful or had settlements in our favor 
every time, which means we've been right. We continue to do 
that. 

When we came out in support of Jacqueline 
Schafer, I'd been getting a lot of comments from my members 
saying, what are you doing? We just sued her last week, and now 
we're supporting her. 

We will continue to take action against the 
Department when the Department goes awry, but perhaps because of 
all of this and in spite of this, we're supporting Jacqueline 
Schafer for Director. We believe she's an honest person. She 
has great administrative skills. She has a great command of 
detail as you heard today, and we think she'll do a good job as 
Director. 

I've been up four times for different directors 
over the years, and this is the first time I really believe 



27 

strongly in the person I'm endorsing. 

Thank you for your time. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you very much. 

Additional witnesses in favor of confirmation? 

MR. GARDNER: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee, my name is Dave Gardner. I'm with the California 
Fish and Game Wardens Protective Association. 

I've been a game warden for 23 years. And to my 
knowledge, this is the first time our association has come 
before you to endorse confirmation of the Director of our 
Department. We're proud to do that today. 

We believe that Ms. Schafer is taking us in the 
right direction, and that with her assistance, we'll be able to 
provide the warden force and the equipment necessary for us to 
protect the resources of the state. 

We urge you to vote for her confirmation. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you very much. 

Next please. 

MR. McCAULL: Thank you, Senator. My name is 
John McCaull, Legislative Director for the National Audubon 
Society. 

We're in support of Ms. Schafer as Director. And 
just as you heard from the Association of Professional 
Scientists, we're not here necessarily to defend the record of 
Fish and Game, but we believe Ms. Schafer will take the 
Department in the right direction and look forward to working 
with her. 

Thank you. 



28 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. 

Next, please. 

MR. WILHELMY: Good afternoon, Members of the 
Committee. I'm Alan Wilhelmy. I'm an attorney and a fisherman 
from Walnut Creek. And I'm a member of the State Board of 
Directors for the California Striped Bass Association. 

The California Striped Bass Association, or CSBA, 
has endorsed Ms. Schafer, and we hope that you vote to confirm 
her appointment as Director of the Department of Fish and Game. 

In order for you to understand our endorsement, 
I'd like to give you a brief background on our organization and 
our dealings with Ms. Schafer in the past year which demonstrate 
her leadership abilities. 

The CSBA is dedicated to the preservation, 
conservation, and the enhancement of the striped bass. Our 
organization was formed over 20 years ago as a result of the 
declining striped bass population due in large part to the 
pumping activities of the state and federal water projects, the 
use of pesticides and the accumulation of heavy metals in Bay 
and Delta. 

Our organization consists of several thousand 
anglers, both Democrats and Republicans, in seven chapters from 
Sacramento to Fresno. We monitor the activities of state and 
federal agencies, as well as state and federal legislation 
affecting the Bay and the Delta, and particularly issues 
affecting the striped bass. 

We are actively involved in our communities, and 
we write letters to our representatives on a regular basis. 



29 

During the past year, we've had a great deal of 
difficulty in dealing with some of the federal agencies with 
respect to some of the conservation programs that we support. 
One of the only striped bass conservation programs now in place 
is the Net Pen Rearing Project. This project involves the 
rescued small striped bass from the streams at the pumping 
projects, transporting those fish to floating pens in the Bay. 

The project has a very high success rate because 
the fish are reared in their natural environment. When the fish 
are about a year old, they are released back into the Bay. 

During the past year, the National Marine 
Fisheries Services refused to renew the permit for the program 
based upon that agency's concern over the striped bass predation 
upon the winter run salmon. After extensive negotiations 
between the Department of Fish and Game staff and the federal 
agency, and despite decades of research by the Department 
showing little impacts upon the striped bass — little impact by 
the striped bass upon the salmon, the federal agency still 
refused to issue the necessary permit. This was despite the 
efforts of very talented people in the Department, including Al 
Petrovich and Don Stevens. 

At that time, Jacqueline Schafer became directly 
involved and negotiated a reasonable compromise, we believe, 
with the federal agency, which now allows the project to move 
forward. The permit has not as yet been issued, but we expect 
that the process will move forward and the permit will be 
issued. 

Ms. Schafer also went to bat for California's 



30 

sport fishermen when the federal agency recently issued rather 
unreasonable new salmon regulations. 

In our dealings with the Department of Fish and 
Game during the past year, it is our impression that Jacqueline 
Schafer is able to grasp difficult issues such as those 
confronting the striped bass. She has established important and 
sensible goals for the Department, and she has now proposed a 
budget that will enable the Department to operate more 
effectively and efficiently. 

I had the pleasure to meet Jacqueline a number of 
months ago at a meeting of the Striped Bass Public Advisory 
Committee -- I'm sorry, the Striped Bass Stamp Public Advisory 
Committee. She at that time shared with us her vision and 
goals for Department, and she expressed her commitment to the 
striped bass issues, and she has followed through on that 
commitment. 

Her staff has demonstrated a commitment to her 
and also has demonstrated, I think, renewed enthusiasm as well. 
With Director Schafer 's leadership, we are hopeful that the 
Department will have in place by this time next year a new 
Striped Bass Stamp Program. 

Several years ago when a stamp program was last 
in place, nearly a half million anglers purchased striped bass 
stamps which represents a tremendous generation of revenue for 
the Department. These stamp revenues benefit not only the 
striped bass conservation efforts, but also directly benefit 
many other species. 

As an example, the Striped Bass Stamp Committee 



31 

has authorized the use of stamp funds for the purchase of 
sophisticated equipment for Fish and Game wardens, including 
night vision scopes and digital cameras. This equipment enables 
the Fish and Game wardens to perform their work and to more 
effectively arrest and prosecute poachers. 

It's my understanding that Ms. Schafer is backing 
projects which are not endorsed by Governor Wilson and has 
opposed a recent pollution bill that many conservation groups 
felt was too lenient. I think Ms. Schafer should be credited 
for her independence. 

In summary, Director Schafer has demonstrated 
leadership, management ability, and commitment in the past year. 
She has the support of our organization and other conservation 
organizations such as ours. 

I can tell you that the California Striped Bass 
Association has had its differences with past directors of the 
Department, but we welcome the direction the Department has 
taken during the last year under Ms. Schafer 's leadership, and 
we certainly look forward to working with her in the near 
future. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. One quick question. 

In view of the recent flooding and high water 
flows going through the Delta, all things being equal, what 
effect will that have in the long term on the population of the 
striped bass? 

MR. WILHELMY: Senator, water is the key issue 
for the striped bass. Unfortunately, it's a much more 
complicated issue than that. 



32 

Last year we had a good deal of rainfall, a lot 
of flows. What appears to have happened last year is that the 
high flow rates washed the small striped bass out of the Delta 
and into the Bay, where they were not able to survive. So, it's 
a very complicated question. Water is the key factor in 
certainly protecting the bass from the pumping efforts. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Too much is not good thing? 

MR. WILHELMY: It's maybe just a matter of 



timing. 



SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. 

MR. PENGILLY: Sir, could I sum up just one 



short thing. 



SENATOR LEWIS: We need you to come up to the 
microphone, please. 

Are you in favor of confirmation? 

MR. PENGILLY: Yes. 

I'm also with the Striped Bass Association. My 
name is Lew Pengilly. 

One of the problems we have with the striped bass 
now in your question regarding the water flows, is we do not 
have enough adults for spawning to bring the striped bass back. 
That's why the Net Pen Program and the hatchery programs are so 
well needed. 

Thank you. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. 

Anyone else in favor of confirmation? 

MR. GAINES: My name is Bill Gaines. I'm the 
Director of Government Affairs for the California Waterfowl 



33 

Association. 

With a membership of over 12,000, the mission of 
the California Waterfowl Association is to preserve and enhance 
California's waterfowl, wetlands, and sporting heritage. Our 
ability to successfully achieve this goal is highly dependent 
upon our ability to work cooperatively with state and federal 
agencies, most notably the Department of Fish and Game. 

When Jackie Schafer was appointed to the position 
of Director of the Department of Fish and Game almost one year 
ago, she was largely unknown to the waterfowl community. We 
received her appointment with a lot of skepticism, but we were 
willing to give her a chance to try. 

Over the course of the last ten months she has 
clearly removed any skepticism that we have had within the 
waterfowl community, and clearly any that the California 
Waterfowl Association has. We have found her to be very 
sensitive to the serious problems that face California's 
waterfowl resource and willing would work closely with us to 
address them. 

I've got a couple of examples I'd like to 
provide. Last year, in the '96-97 budget, although we did 
fairly well in regards to waterfowl related programs, we did 
have a need, a serious need, after the release of the Governor's 
budget to address some of the O&M needs of some of the wildlife 
areas. The Upper Butte Sink Wildlife area is one of them in 
particular. 

Ms. Schafer worked very closely with us to 
provide the necessary funding, and I'm pleased to say that we 



34 

were successful in that effort, and that was one of our primary 
waterfowl areas. It's not a very big one, but it's a darn 
important one up in the Sacramento Valley. 

Another example, and speaking of federal funding, 
as many of you probably know, the 1996 Farm Bill was signed into 
law by President Clinton last April. Following the signing of 
that Farm Bill, the actual details, the guidelines, rules and 
regulations, if you will, for a lot of the conservation programs 
within that bill still needed to be carved out. 

In many cases when you have legislation that's 
written as a national level, it doesn't necessarily address real 
needs that we have here in California. And from a waterfowl 
perspective, I can assure you that our needs are completely 
different than almost every other state in the country. 

Because of the large changes in the natural 
hydrology of our state, we have very few naturally occurring 
wetlands. Most of our wetlands remaining in the state, which 
is only about five percent, have to be artificially irrigate and 
intensely managed to create marsh vegetation. Obviously, that 
comes at a tremendous expense, and obviously that's different 
than a lot of the programs that we have nationally. 

We need programs that fit California's unique 
environment. Wetlands across the rest of the country primarily 
get wet naturally, just like they did historically here in 
California. 

The Conservation Reserve Program is one of the 
primary programs within the conservation title of the Farm 
Bill. Ms. Schafer and the Department of Fish and Game worked 



35 

closely with California Waterfowl Association to provide the 
comments to the United States Department of Agriculture to where 
we could get that program, the rules and regulations for that 
program, written in a fashion that fit here in California. And 
as a program that's been around roughly ten years, funded at 
almost $2 billion a year, it's painful for me to say that we 
only have about 100,000 acres enrolled here in California. 

That will change when the implementation of the 
1996 Farm Bill hits the ground following the final rules and 
regulations, which we expect to see shortly, and the Department 
of Fish and Game can take a lot of the credit for that. We 
appreciate it. 

We are strongly in support of Ms. Schafer's 
confirmation as Director. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you very much, and would 
you give my personal regards to Shirley Siefert, please? 

MR. GAINES: You bet I will. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Let's hear now from the 
opposition. 

MR. PALMER: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee, I'm Mark Palmer. I'm Director of Wildlife Alive. 
This is a project of Earth Island Institute in San Francisco, 
here in opposition to Director Schafer. 

Now, in fairness to Director Schafer, our major 
concerns, which I outlined in my letter to the Committee and 
which I won't go into great detail here, I won't take up your 
time for that, is with the policies that have been imposed upon 
the California Department of Fish and Game by the administration 



36 

of Governor Pete Wilson. Policies that, in my opinion, are 
disastrous, are derogatory towards our wildlife heritage, and 
which unfortunately Director Schafer, either willingly or 
unwillingly, is going to have to implement. 

Again, I won't go into great detail about them. 
You have them in my letter with the California Endangered 
Species Act and with other aspects. 

I have also a copy of a letter that I sent to the 
Department of Fish and Game regarding management of mountain 
lions, urging them to take a number of steps with mountain 
lions, and I'm still waiting for a response to that one, as well 
as some newspaper articles about the problems at the Department 
of Fish and Game. And I'd like to add these to the record. And 
you have my letter as well. 

We do have those concerns. And again, I can 
count votes as well as anyone, so I hope in your consideration 
of the vote, as well as your further considerations down the 
line of the Department Fish and Game's budget, some of the 
issues coming before you in the Legislature, that you'll keep in 
mind these concerns and we can work them out. 

Thanks very much for your consideration. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. 

Senator Brulte for a question. 

SENATOR BRULTE: I'd like to ask a couple 
questions. 

Let me see if I have this correct. You're not 
opposed to Ms. Schafer, you just don't think highly of the 
Governor? 



37 

MR. PALMER: It's a combination of both. I think 
Ms. Schafer is going implement those positions. That's 
correct. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Does your organization get 
involved in political campaigns and make endorsements? 

MR. PALMER: No, actually. Earth Island 
Institute does not make endorsements. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Do your members get involved and 
make endorsements? 

MR. PALMER: I'm sure some of them do, but it's 
not a political organization in that sense. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Would you venture a guess that 
most of your members supported the Governor in the last election 
or supported his — 

MR. PALMER: My guess is, those members, it's a 
national — actually international -- organization, so my guess 
is those members in California, the majority, probably opposed 
him in the election. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Okay, thank you. 

MR. PALMER: Thank you. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Anyone else wishing to testify in 



opposition. 



you, 



for Animals. 



Anyone wanting to express just concern? Thank 



MS.HANDLEY: I'm Virginia Handley with the Fund 



I'm sorry that we do not come with a position. 
We have tried to get together with Jackie Schafer a few times, 



38 

and I think we're going to manage to do that sometime soon to 
ask her some of the specific questions of concerns that we 
have. 

I'm concerned when a Chairman of our Natural 
Resources and Wildlife Committee has concerns. I would like for 
him to be in support as well as the other environmental groups. 
That would make us feel a whole lot more confident. 

I do attend most all the Fish and Game Commission 
meetings at every opportunity. I've always found Jackie Schafer 
always to be very competent and a very good administrator. 

I'm also happy to see support of wardens. I 
think that's very important when the people on the front line 
are in support. 

I would like see more environmental support. She 
has been quoted as saying she wants to emphasize the, quote, 
"contribution of the sporting public." Of course, we feel we 
represent that part of the public, which is about 97 percent, 
that do not hunt. And we like to see their interests 
represented by the Department and by the Director. 

We do have existing law that when they do their 
regulations for the hunting and trapping, that they are to 
consider the welfare of individual animals. And we don't very 
often see that reflected in the regulations, and we hope that 
Ms. Schafer would put some emphasis on that. We're concerned of 
animals being clubbed to death in traps, and suffocated or 
choked to death, unnecessary suffering of animals, and ways like 
that, and with a lot of the archery and the hunting with the 
dogs. 



39 

We also want to encourage Ms. Schafer to keep the 
Fish and Game Department to support the fact that they have 
jurisdiction over issues such as deer farms and other wildlife 
that are in captivity. We feel Fish and Game has a lot more 
expertise on these animals than, say, the Department of 
Agriculture. 

There's a move to try and weaken regulations 
covering captive wildlife, and we want do see them strong, and 
we would love to see them stronger. Issues such as elephants in 
captivity that are now allowed to be on chains for 19 hours a 
day. That's something that we'd like to see corrected. That's 
up to the Department of Fish and Game to support that and for 
the Commission to confirm that. 

Thank you. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Does your organization equally 
oppose sport fishing as well as sport hunting? 

MS. HANDLEY: We really don't get involved in the 
fishing at all. To spend one meeting of the Fish and Game 
Commission, you see how overwhelming an issue that would be for 
us to take on. I certainly would not have the expertise on 
that. 

Of course, we prefer, you know, nonpainful means 
of killing any animal, and that's just about impossible when you 
get into fishing. We have certainly interests in other animals 
that are killed or hurt in the process of fishing, particularly 
commercial fishing. So, a lot of times we support the sport 
fishermen because they are more habitat oriented. 

SENATOR LEWIS: All right, thank you. 



40 

Anyone else wishing to express concerns at this 
time? Apparently not. 

Ms. Schafer, it's the desire of the Committee to 
try to expedite your vote. We're going to try to have a hearing 
set for the 29th. Would you be able to respond to Senator 
Hayden's letter to the Committee? 

MS. SCHAFER: Yes, I'll be happy to respond 
before that time with ample time for the Committee to review the 
responses. 

SENATOR LEWIS: That'll be fine. In that case, 
our next hearing we will be handling your confirmation. The 
vote will be to the 29th. 

Thank you very much. 

MS. SCHAFER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

SENATOR LEWIS: At this point in time, we'd like 
to proceed and ask Mr. Steve Baker to come forward. 

Welcome, Mr. Baker. 

MR. BAKER: Thank you very much. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Do you have an opening statement 
that you'd like to proceed with? 

MR. BAKER: Senator, I don't think so. I think 
in the interest of time, I have appeared before the Committee 
before. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Yes, you have. 

MR. BAKER: And you do have my resume. I'd just 
as soon open myself up to questions. 

SENATOR LEWIS: All right. 

Does any Member of the Committee have any 



41 

questions for Mr. Baker at this time? We've heard Mr. Baker 
before. Let's go ahead. 

Apparently, there aren't any questions at this 
point in time, so let's open it up and see if there's anyone in 
the audience that would like to provide any testimony. Anybody 
here today that would like to testify in behalf of Mr. Baker's 
confirmation? 

SENATOR HUGHES: I want to ask the same question 
that I asked Carol Bentley about revocations of paroles, the 
percentages have gone up from 60.1 percent to 68.4 percent, and 
why is this so? And what are you doing to turn this trend 
around? 

MR. BAKER: Senator, I'm not sure I want to turn 
the trend around. 

As far as revocations go, we are — I think the 
policy is that we're very tough with revocations. If you let 
somebody out on parole, you're telling him you're giving him a 
chance. And if he violates that trust that you put in him on 
more than one occasion, then I really don't have any sympathy 
for him. As far as I'm concerned he should be revocated. 

SENATOR HUGHES: So, your get-tough policy is 
good for the community, is what you're saying? 

MR. BAKER: I think that the crime statistics 
would bear that out, that crime is down all over the state. One 
of the reasons it's down is because of the get tough policies. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I have no more questions. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Is there anyone in the audience 
that would like to testify in opposition to this confirmation? 



42 



Anyone wanting to express concerns? 

Mr. Baker, you're in for an easy day, I think. 
Is there anyone that would like to make a motion at this 
time. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Move it. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Senator Brulte moves 
confirmation. Secretary please call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

SENATOR LEWIS: The vote is four to nothing. We 
will recommend confirmation. Congratulations to you. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Lockyer said he will be 
added as an Aye vote. 

SENATOR LEWIS: The vote will be five to nothing. 
Additional congratulations to you. 

With that, we are adjourned. 

[Thereupon. This portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing was 

terminated at approximately 3:25 P.M.] 
— 00O00 — 



43 



CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 



I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

u IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 

ft. .--' S 

^7 Z da y of > rJ^>^^>^r- , 1997. 





;evelvn j^tmizak 

Shorthand Reporter 



313-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.25 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 313-R when ordering. 



•ecu" - t. 

documents omr. mar - 4 1997 

MAR - 4 1997 9m fb > 

SAN FR*NC*SCO WIBLIC Ud«m*Y 

PUBLIC LIBRAS^ 



^ HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1997 
1:55 RM. 



314-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1997 
1:55 P.M. 



Reported by 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR JAMES BRULTE 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

JACQUELINE E. SCHAFER, Director 
Department of Fish and Game 



Ill 

INDEX 

Page 

Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees t 

JACQUELINE SCHAFER, Director 

Department of Fish and Game 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Department is Trustee for California's 

Plant, Fish and Wildlife 1 

Role of Department in Conflicts between 
Development and Resources 2 

Listing of Central California Coho Salmon 

as Threatened Species 2 

Federal Prohibitions against Sport Fishing 

in Inland Waters not Adopted by Department 3 

Possible Adoption of Emergency Rules to 

Prohibit Sport Fishing for Coho 4 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Bee 's Series of Articles Highlighting Lack 

of Control on Coastal Resources 5 

Plans to Protect State's Coastal Resources 5 

Conclusion that Bee Supports Department's 
Actions 8 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Available Federal Monies that Were Not 

Applied For 9 

Developer Fees to Mitigate Impacts 11 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Approval of Projects without Proper 

Mitigation 13 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Philosophical Disagreement between Listing 
Approach and Habitat Conservation Theory 14 



IV 



Commitment to Using Department's Budget 
and Resources to Protect Plant, Fish and 
Wildlife 15 

Chief Deputy whose Background Is with 

Building Industry Association 17 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Enforcement of Federal Endangered 

Species Act 18 

Familiarity with City of Colton's Problem 

with Endangered Fly Species 19 

Motion to Confirm 20 

Committee Action 21 

Termination of Proceedings 21 

Certificate of Reporter 22 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let's start with Director 
Schafer as a way of getting us going. Hi. 

MS. SCHAFER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 
Members of the Committee. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, we were appreciative of 
our last visit, and scheduled today's discussion in order to 
have an opportunity for you to review and comment on Senator 
Hayden's questions. I don't seem to have those. 

MS. MICHEL: It's part of your file, Senator 
Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, this is the response. 

It seems like you tried to be thorough. 

MS. SCHAFER: I did, Mr. Chairman. Lest that be 
in any way off-putting, I call your attention to the first 12 
pages which includes Senator Hayden's questions and my direct 
answers. The balance of the document are attachments, the vast 
majority of which are all ready in the public domain, have been 
provided to some committee of the Legislature or otherwise 
available to the public. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Just to recap a few of these 
to make sure we get them in the record, and we'll submit the 
answers for part of the record, but he asked if you believe that 
the Department is the public trustees of California's plant, 
fish and wildlife. Your unequivocal answer seems to be yes. 

MS. SCHAFER: Yes, sir, that is correct, it is. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And if there are conflicts 



between development and resource perspectives, what is your 
role. 

MS. SCHAFER: And our role, the Department of 
Fish and Game's role, by statute, custom and practice, is to 
represent all Californians interested in the prudent management 
of the state's natural resources. That is, it must be 
understood in the context of other public policy objectives, 
some of which may appear to conflict with that role. However, 
we've been successful in minimizing the conflicts between 
economic development and environmental protection. 

An example of that is the Natural Communities 
Conservation Program, where we have managed to conserve vast 
amounts of very fine habitat in Southern California counties, 
thousands of acres of habitat, as a way of protecting endangered 
and threatened species as well as all the other species 
associated with the coastal sage scrub found in Southern 
California. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We did talk about this issue 
at the previous hearing, but again, it's asked more specifically 
about listing of Central California coho salmon as threatened. 

Would you care to summarize your response on 
that? 

MS. SCHAFER: Prior to the federal listing of the 
Central California coastal — evolutionarily significant unit of 
the coho salmon as threatened, the California Commission on Fish 
and Game considered a petition to list that species south of San 
Francisco as endangered. The Department was on record in 
connection with that deliberation by the Fish and Game 



Commission, and the Commission did, in October of 1995, find 
that species endangered. 

The communications between — the subsequent 
communications between the Department and the federal government 
when the federal government was considering listing the coho 
salmon as threatened, not only there, but in two other parts of 
California and Oregon, we acknowledged that although the 
Commission listing dealt only south of San Francisco, that the 
entire evolutionarily significant unit in Central California 
needed to be managed in such a way to protect the entire 
population. 

Subsequently, the listing by the federal 
government, the decision was made in October of 1996, and the 
effective date of the take prohibition associated with the 
federal listing was December 30, 1996. 

Subsequently, we've been working to try to 
determine what the best way to cooperatively work with the 
federal government, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and 
the California Department of Fish and Game, and other 
departments that can make a contribution here, how to actually 
develop a recovery program for the listed species. And we 
believe that using the NCCP program as a blueprint, as a guide, 
to try to go into the coastal communities in Northern and 
Central California, and work on a watershed by watershed basis 
to develop a comprehensive plan to address not only the 
endangered species, but others that are associated with them in 
those habitats. 

The Governor's Watershed Initiative, which is 



part of the 1997-98 budget request, includes significant funding 
for the Department of Fish and Game/ and for other departments 
at Resources Agency and Cal-EPA to provide the tools that we 
need to do this watershed planning which we believe will lead to 
the recovery of the coho salmon. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Now, as I understand it, then, 
there were some federal prohibitions against sport fishing in 
inland waters that weren't adopted by the Department? 

MS. SCHAFER: The Section 9 take prohibition 
supercedes all federal law. In-river take of coho salmon is 
prohibited by virtue of federal law, as well as any other 
activities that would result in the take of the listed species 
as a result of the Section 9 take prohibition. 

When that became effective, actually before that 
became effective, the Department issued a notice to anglers and 
others about the effective date of that prohibition. We issued 
that notice to the public, and our wardens, who are cross 
deputized to enforce federal natural resources law, are in the 
field, and will instruct people, and otherwise use their 
enforcement powers to warn and prevent the inadvertent take of 
the coho salmon. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess this may be getting to 
the next question he had posed, whether you would recommend to 
the Commission they not adopt emergency rules to prohibit sport 
fishing for coho? 

MS. SCHAFER: The adoption of emergency rules was 
not necessary from a legal point of view to protect the coho 
because the federal law supercedes state law in that regard. 



The Commission also, in considering that request 
that was made to them by the Natural Marine Fisheries Service, 
after taking testimony from a number of parties, decided to take 
no action at this time. In fact, some Commissioners suggested 
that a program for recovery, conservation program, under Section 
4(d) of the federal Endangered Species Act be pursued jointly by 
the federal and state agencies. And that later, when the 
Department reconsiders its sport fishing regulations for the 
next cycle — it's done every two years — we would incorporate 
the 4(d) plans into the state's sport fishing regulations at 
that time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If Members have questions, 
yes, Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: A few weeks ago, the Bee had a 
series of articles that highlighted the fact that there was a 
lack of control on coastal resources. 

And I note that nowhere in the Governor's budget 
does there appear any acknowledgement of the lack of enforcement 
capability in the Department. 

I want to ask you, what are your plans to more 
adequately protect our state's coastal resources? 

MS. SCHAFER: Actually, the Department's budget, 
which is part of the Governor's budget, does include significant 
increased resources for enforcement in the ocean environment. 

SENATOR HUGHES: It does? 

MS. SCHAFER: Yes ma'am. 

When I first came to the Department last 
February, I discovered that the Department had 30 vacancies in 



its warden ranks. It had significantly reduced its presence in 
the marine environment because of financial difficulties that 
led to the sale of some large patrol boats what were too 
expensive to operate in the marine environment. Operating in 
that environment is very expensive. 

Also, the Department lacked sufficient funds to 
pay over- time. When you go on marine patrol, significant time 
away from your home base is made and must be compensated. 

I instructed the head of the Wildlife Protection 
Division to immediately begin to recruit for those 30 vacancies, 
and we began to build a budget. And as you all know, that takes 
quite a few months for the departments to put a budget together 
and to get it through the process. 

That budget for the Wildlife Protection Division 
includes funding for replacement patrol vessels, two new boats 
that are smaller and more capable and less expensive to operate 
for this coming fiscal year, with one to follow on in the 
following fiscal year. Additional funds to pay over-time so 
that wardens could spend more time on patrol, and just generally 
providing operating expenses and equipment funding for wardens 
in an amount that is necessary no support a typical warden in 
the field. Normally, that's about $10,000 per warden per year. 
We were funding our wardens at about $6,000 per year. 

I considered that, and the fact that so many 
positions were unfilled, as to be somewhat akin to a hollow 
forces situation that we found our military in some years ago. 
I suggested to the staff that we needed to have a no hollow 
forces policy, and to make a high priority the funding and 



proper equipping of our field staff. 

This is the first year of this funding. We're 
beginning with our warden force because their requirements are 
so well documented. But we also in the future plan to make sure 
that our field biologists and other field activities are also 
properly equipped to do their job. 

The fact that we are having these 30 new 
positions available and funded starting next fiscal year will 
increase our presence in the marine environment significantly. 
About 70 percent of the total hours that these wardens, the new 
wardens that we're hiring, spend will be in the marine 
environment off the coast of California. 

SENATOR HUGHES: So, in other words, you're 
telling me I shouldn't believe what I read in the Bee ? 

MS. SCHAFER: No. 

SENATOR HUGHES: They're not telling the truth? 

MS. SCHAFER: Oh, no, no, no, no. The Bee's 



story — 



action? 



SENATOR HUGHES: Has their article motivated your 



MS. SCHAFER: No, I think what our budget request 
and the Bee' s story have in common is that both recognized the 
situation as it existed over the past several years. 

Our funding condition was very poor. Our sources 
of funds were down as a result of a number of economic and other 
problems in California. And we are not funded very much by the 
General Fund, and so we depend on the hunting and fishing 
licenses and stamps that anglers and hunters buy in order to 



8 

fund most of our base programs. 

Now that our fund condition has improved, we've 
turned the corner on that, it's my highest priority to make sure 
that our people are properly equipped to do their job. 

I think the Bee did an excellent job documenting 
some of the problems out in the marine environment, and I think 
what they identified and what I identified, and then tried to 
correct in our budget, reflect the same reality. 

SENATOR HUGHES: So, you would then conclude that 
the Bee supported your actions that you have taken in this 
regard? 

MS. SCHAFER: I think the Bee has acknowledged 
that our budget request for next year is a step in the right 
direction, and that's what I think it is, too. It's one step in 
a series that we must take to restore the resources in the 
marine environment. 

It's not a wholly negative situation, I would 
like to point out. Sardines are coming back into California's 
marine environment after many, many decades of absence. Our 
herring fishery is in very good shape. The biomass estimates 
have proved to be very accurate, and the catch is as a result of 
that. 

We do have other problems that we are addressing 
through innovative programs, such as a program to restore sea 
bass in Southern California, the Ocean Resources Enhancement 
Program that we conduct in conjunction with the Sport Fishing 
Association of Southern California. 

So, there's a lot going on out there. There are 



9 

many reasons to be hopeful, but we have to keep working at it. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm also reading your 
responses to the San Francisco Chronicle 's editorial to at least 
mention that that paper expressed views about this matter 
today. I think we've distributed the comments. 

You point out four or five segments that you 
think are inaccurate. 

I hadn't quite finished reading this, so I wanted 
to make sure to ask questions about it if anything was not 
self-explanatory. 

With respect to the Department's cooperation with 
the federal government and its programs, one comment I've heard, 
I think at the time of El Nino, there were federal monies 
available but not applied for to help with the impacts on 
fishermen. 

Does that sounds familiar in any way? 

MS. SCHAFER: Yes, I addressed that in my 
responses to Senator Hayden's questions, and also I can review 
that information with the Committee at this time. 

In 1994, the federal government closed the ocean 
salmon fishery in Northern California, Oregon, and Washington. 
The severe reduction in the abundance of the fish that are 
harvested there was a result of the combination of forces, some 
of which were natural. El Nino and the drought here in 
California were particularly cited and contributing to that 
closure. 

As a result of the closure, the Governor of 



10 

California in May of 1994, declared a State of Emergency and 
wrote to the President requesting federal disaster assistance 
under a federal program. And California received, along with 
Washington and Oregon, funds — I'm sorry, not the State of 
California -- Californians in the four north coastal counties 
that were eligible for the assistance under the disaster 
declaration were able to apply for a total of $12 million in 
federal funds for the three states. 

California received an allotment from the 
Department of Commerce in the amount of $2.7 million for the job 
retraining, unemployment relief. 

And in the State of Washington in particular, a 
vessel buy-back program to actually reduce the number of people 
fishing in the ocean. California and Californians were not 
interested in participating in such a program, but the fact is 
that the largest share of the funding from the federal 
government went to the buy-back program. Californians did not 
want to give up their opportunity to fish, but some number of 
people from Washington did. 

The kinds of programs we pursued in California 
included habitat conservation and at-sea sampling, and the 
Department sought a significant share of funding for those kinds 
of activities. We thought that a fair share would be about an 
even split, one-third to each state. Ultimately, we received 
somewhat less than that. 

However, the programs were quite successful, and 
there was an opportunity for follcw-on money. When I was made 
aware of the opportunity by the fishing industry and by the 



11 

Resources Agency, I was able to ascertain that the Governor's 
Emergency Declaration was still in effect, and that our grantees 
were still eligible for receiving any follow-on money. 

My understanding is that approximately $3 
million — my recollection is that approximately $3 million was 
available to the Northwest Assistance Program. California 
received about 700,000 of that, which is about the same 
percentage as they received the previous year. 

The program is one, and particularly the habitat 
restoration activities, is the kind of thing that the Governor's 
Watershed Initiative is trying to continue. And our budget 
request contains $650,000 for precisely those kinds of 
activities, watershed restoration in the coastal communities. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There's discussion of fee 
income in various parts of the commentary. One has to do with 
the developer fees that are available to levy if there's some 
impacts that they need to mitigate by that payment. 

It's my understanding that nearly two-thirds of 
all the projects have been waived as having no such impact. 
That obviously has some impact on the fee stream, but separate 
from that, does that seem like a correct assessment of whether 
there are impacts with the various developments? 

MS. SCHAFER: Under the law for collecting these 
development fees, there is a provision for waiving diminimus 
actions. 

The fees are collected by the lead agencies which 
primarily are the counties. I don't know whether the number 
two-thirds is the correct one; I don't have that information 



12 

handy right now. But it is quite conceivable that many, many 
activities really have a diminimus impact/ and therefore it 
would be appropriate to waive the fee. 

On the other hand, there are lots of projects 
that require significant time and effort by the Department's 
staff to review, and we do work with developers to mitigate 
impacts ahead of time so that a negative declaration is possible 
because there is know adverse impact on the environment. In 
that case a fee would be appropriate, and the fees are to be 
collected by the county. 

I don't think -- if you'd like, I can review the 
legal situation with regard to that because that has now been 
challenged. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, I understand the legal 
argument and the court rulings as to whether it's a tax or a 
fee. 

MS. SCHAFER: My basic approach to this is that 
although we may be able to develop a substitute fee, that our 
experience was that even at the height of the collections of 
this program, the total dollars generated were not adequate to 
support the kinds of activities that Department intended and 
Legislature intended that the Department fund with that fee 
program. 

As a consequence, I believe we need to pursue 
every possible opportunity to pay for our environmental quality 
review and our endangered species and related protection 
programs through a possible combination of alternative sources 
to that fee. It has not produced the revenues that were 



13 

expected and does not match our costs. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there other questions? 
Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I just have one question. 

Have you ever approved a project without proper 
mitigation taking place as it pertains to species and 
environment and so forth? 

MS. SCHAFER: I am not aware of any case where 
that ~ 

SENATOR AYALA: You have never approved a project 
where mitigation didn't take place? 

MS. SCHAFER: I am not aware that we have ever 
approved a project where proper mitigation did not take place 
where such mitigation was required. I'm not personally 
acquainted with that. 

As I testified earlier and also today, we have 
some aggressive programs in place, especially in Southern 
California, to preserve entire natural communities so that the 
growth that does take place where there is not the high value 
habitat will be able to proceed with a degree of certainty and 
with more effective protection of the environment, and the 
habitat, and the species that live there. 

But it is our responsibility as a public trustee 
for California's natural resources to see to it that the 
environmental impacts of any developments are minimized, and 
that the mitigation is proper for protecting the relevant 
species or habitat in question. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There seems to be still some 



14 

continuing philosophical disagreement between the listing 
approach and the habitat conservation theory about managing 
resources and protecting habitat and species. 

What do you find is the persuasive evidence that 
the habitat conservation approach works? 

MS. SCHAFER: The sheer volume of habitat that we 
expect to be able to protect under this conservation program, 
and the fact that they are connected/ they are contiguous, and 
provide an opportunity for the whole community of species that 
relate to each other to continue on a long-term basis without 
disturbance is the primary reason why the approach that we favor 
is going to be more effective than what we had previously been 
doing, which was basically to try to go species by species and 
set aside some postage stamp, as they are sometimes called, of 
property that would be habitat for that individual species. 

They are not connected. You are not necessarily 
able to protect what happens around those reserves. Those can 
change. Those conditions can change in the long-term viability 
as habitat for threatened or endangered species is called into 
question. 

The idea of a landscape approach is one that has 
been talked about by professionals and biologists and scientists 
for many, many years. Here in California, we really are the 
pioneer for actually putting it in place as a matter of a state 
government program. 

We have the full cooperation of the U.S. 
Department of Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service in 
pursuing that program in Southern California. We've conserved 



15 

enormous quantities of real estate that has excellent habitat on 
it as a result, and we'd like to see that continued in other 
counties in Southern California and elsewhere as we gain 
experience with this program. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, because we are pioneers, 
there's a theory about its efficacy, but no specific studies 
that would bear out its workability? 

MS. SCHAFER: We have, through agreements that 
have already been executed, conserved — that is, they will not 
be developed — some vast quantities of land in Southern 
California that provide excellent habitat for threatened and 
endangered species, and all the other associated terrestial 
species in that community. 

So, it already — you know, the habitat is now 
being protected. Obviously, we have a long way to go in terms 
of implementing some of the plans that have recently been agreed 
to, but there's every expectation that this approach is one that 
protects a large quantity of habitat and provides the resources, 
the funding, over the long-term as well to maintain those 
properties properly as habitat so that they will sustain those 
populations for decades in the future. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Finally, I read your answer, 
but it's probably appropriate to get in the record, we've asked 
it in a number of different ways, but I guess I'm insisting that 
you explain the extent to which you're committed to using your 
budget and resources to protect our plant, fish and wildlife 
resources? 

MS. SCHAFER: Our budget request for the coming 



16 

fiscal year is significantly larger than our current budget. We 
are moving from about $165 million operating budget to about 
$190 million. We will be able to increase staffing, both 
permanent and temporary, to carry that out. Some of that money 
comes from the Prop. 204 bond issue that was passed, and it will 
allow us to restore habitat in the Central Valley in California, 
both Sacramento and San Joaquin. 

There are six major initiatives in my budget. 
They are a balance of efforts to both conserve and improve 
habitat for salmonids, coastal and Sacramento and San Joaquin 
Valley salmon species and the related species that live there, 
and a program to be proper stewards of the lands that we own. 
We have 99 ecological reserves, and 98 wildlife areas around the 
state. Significantly new resources are being provided to 
maintain those properties in a proper way as well. 

Likewise, much of our funding comes from hunting 
and fishing revenues. And we have a striped bass recovery 
program, as well as an upland game bird heritage program, which 
are going to be enhanced by my budget. 

And finally, as I discussed with Senator Hughes, 
we would like to make sure that our people at the Department of 
Fish and Game are properly equipped to do the job that the 
statutes and Legislature expects of them; that is, our habitat 
conservation responsibility, and our responsibility to our 
license buyers for recreational opportunity. 

That's the point of increasing funding for 
wardens and for field biologists, as well as people at 
Headquarters trying to bring us into the 21st Century with 



17 

respect to computer equipment and advanced technology. 

All of those working together will, I believe, as 
well as our base program, enable us to protect the fish and 
wildlife resources of the State of California. And I certainly 
pledge myself to lead this agency to do that if I am 
confirmed. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You would call that a solid 
commitment? 

MS. SCHAFER: Yes, sir, I think so. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's sort of an awkward thing 
to ask, but I feel somewhat compelled to, and I only do it not 
knowing any of the job duties or recommendations that you would 
receive from staff so on, but since we have this tension between 
resource protection and development that often causes contention 
within your department, it seems appropriate to ask whether 
having a chief deputy that came out of the lobbying force of the 
Building Industry Association is a good idea? 

MS. SCHAFER: I have several deputies. Most of 
them are career people who have spent a lifetime with the 
Department of Fish and Game and bring to that Department, bring 
to my office, the kind of experience and guidance and 
information that I need to make the proper decisions. 

There are appointees by — the Governor's 
appointees, exempt positions, who work on external affairs with 
our constituents as well as the Legislature, and a General 
Counsel who is also an exempt appointee. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Those are appointed by the 
Governor? 



18 

MS. SCHAFER: Yes, they are. They are part of my 
staff, and they are at the rank of deputy. But all the other 
deputies at the Department right now are career people who have 
collectively decades of experience in Fish and Game. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It seems like a question more 
appropriately put to the Governor, since he makes that 
decision. 

Any other questions? 

SENATOR AYALA: I have one more question. 

If a species is under the federal Endangered 
Species Act but not under the state, would you actually get 
involved with that? If it was under the federal act but not 
under the state Endangered Species Act? 

MS. SCHAFER: Yes, we would. 

As I explained in connection with the coho 
listing, our wardens are cross deputized to enforce federal 
natural resources laws, and we would certainly want to be sure 
that our people were not inadvertently or otherwise violating 
federal laws. 

SENATOR AYALA: Why would you want to get 
involved? It's not under your jurisdiction. 

MS. SCHAFER: We certainly want to cooperate with 
the federal agencies in protecting species. There are different 
tools to do that, but I think that generally our goals are 
mutual; that is, we are trying to protect sufficient habitat for 
species and — 

SENATOR AYALA: Are you familiar when the problem 
we're experiencing in the City of Colton with a fly? 



19 

MS. SCHAFER: Yes, sir. I have heard about that, 
the gully sands flower loving fly is a federally listed species 
that apparently is having some effect in the City of Colton on a 
project. That is not a — 

SENATOR AYALA: The fly at the moment is six 
inches below the ground, but when it gets warm, it's going to 
start raising hell with the people around there. 

Why should we protect something like that? 

MS. SCHAFER: Let me just point out that it is 
federally listed, not state listed, because under the state 
environmental — Endangered Species Act, we don't list 
insects. 

However, we are not involved with that particular 
case. If there were a way that a local developer was seeking 
expert opinion on how to mitigate impacts on that species or on 
its habitat, we would certainly work with those local people to 
find a way to minimize those effects. 

SENATOR AYALA: In this particular case, I 
understand the Australian government, or someone in Australia, 
wants to build a large plant there in that isolated area that 
would create a lot of jobs or hundreds of jobs. The 
environmentalists are fighting it because of some stupid fly 
that's down there, and it's going to come out later on with the 
population. 

I really don't understand that application of 
protection of endangered species. 

MS. SCHAFER: That is an illustration of the 
point that the Chairman was making before about the potential 



20 

conflict between economic development projects and the need to 
protect habitat. 

As I said, we are not involved in that particular 
case, but to the extent that a community would like the 
assistance of the Department of Fish and Game in determining 
whether mitigation is possible, what the proper biological 
approach to the species would be, we would be happy to help to 
the extent that we have personnel with that kind of 
expertise. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

Is there anyone present who would wish to comment 
that perhaps was not or didn't have the opportunity last time. 

Pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR BRULTE: Move. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion to recommend 
confirmation to the full Senate. 

Call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 



21 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good luck. 

MS. SCHAFER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 
Members of the Committee. 

And if you would indulge me, I'd like to say 
thanks to John Grant. 

[Thereupon. This portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing was 

terminated at approximately 2:32 P.M.] 
— 00O00 — 



22 



CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California/ do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
^)jy day of ^^t^y^^c^t^i^ 1997. 



v s« 





X 




EVELYN JXMIZi 
Shorthand Reporter 



314-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 314-R when ordering. 



^HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF.CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1997 
2:55 P.M. 



MAR - 4 1997 

SAN FRANOiSCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



315-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1997 
2:55 P.M. 



Reported by 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 
MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

MEMBERS ABSENT 

SENATOR JAMES BRULTE 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

CRAIG L. BROWN 
Director of Finance 

EDWARD B. SYLVESTER, Member 
California Transportation Commission 

SENATOR TIM LESLIE 



Ill 



INDEX 

Page 

Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees; 

CRAIG L. BROWN, Director 

Department of Finance 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Tentative Estimate on Flood Costs 1 

Hardest Part of Job 2 

Relying on Federal Dollars to Make 

State Budget Work . 2 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Implementation of Dynamic Modeling in 
Forecasting and Analysis 3 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Use of Dynamic Model on Governor's 

Proposals 4 

Money Shifted from AFDC to Other Programs 4 

How Experience with Youth Authority and 
Corrections Affected Budget 5 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

How Experience with Youth and Adult 

Corrections Agency Helped in Present 

Assignment 6 

Possibility of Bias 7 

Principal Causes of Youth Becoming 

Career Criminals 7 

Background Molding Attitudes toward 

Change in Welfare Policies 7 

Educational Experiences of Young People 

in Corrections System 8 



IV 



Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Opportunity to Discuss Current Job with 
Predecessors 10 

Compliments to Department for Professionalism 
and Nonpartisanship 11 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

How Formal Eduation Has Helped in Current 
Responsibilities 12 

Motion to Confirm 12 

Committee Action 13 

EDWARD B. SYLVESTER, Member 

California Transportation Commission 13 

Introduction and Support by SENATOR TIM LESLIE 14 

Background and Experience 15 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Role and Concerns of Commission 16 

Annual Need for Additional Funding 

of Highway and Mass Transit Projects 17 

Seismic Retrofit 18 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Suggestions or Ideas for Enhancing 

Moneys for Transportation in California 18 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Possible Conflict of Interest with 

Vector Engineering 20 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Suggestions to Reduce Congestion and 

Delays on California ' s Highways 21 

Possibility of Raising Gasoline Tax to 

Maintain Roads and Highways Properly 22 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Faucets 23 



Most Difficult Decision in, Past Year 24 

Principal Cause of Most Cost Overruns 24 

Time Devoted to Commission-related Work 25 

Lobbying 26 

Independence of Commission 26 

Motion to Confirm 27 

Committee Action 27 

Termination of Proceedings 27 

Certificate of Transcriber 28 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— ooOoo — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Brown, looking at your resume here, 
it looks like you're having trouble holding a job. 

MR. BROWN: Recently. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You've moved around. a lot. What's that 
all about? 

No, go ahead. Do you want to start with whatever comments 
you would wish to make? 

MR. BROWN: As you know, I've been around this business a 
few years. I was a budget officer in the Air Force. I worked 
for the Analyst for eight years, and I've been doing budgets more 
or less the rest of my career with the state. 

I'll be happy to answer your questions. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you have any tentative estimates on 
the flood costs to the state? 

MR. BROWN: I believe we testified the other day that we 
thought that the tentative were 120 — about 120 million general 
fund potential impact, which would be spread over a few years. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm sorry, what was your answer? 

MR. BROWN: As of last count, it was 120 million general 
fund. The emergency part would be right away. The restoration 
part would be spread over a fiscal year or two or three. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And the 120 is both? 

MR. BROWN: Is general fund, correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the proportion? 

MR. BROWN: I can't — don't recall exactly, but I think 
it's 40 or 50 of emergency response. 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And would this include, if we were to 
adopt the traditional tax relief, or picking up the local agency 
share — 

MR. BROWN: I don't believe that includes that. That 
would be on top of it. It would probably affect the budget year 
not the current year. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the hardest part of your job? 

MR. BROWN: That's a tough question. I guess getting the 
pleasure of saying no to almost every Wilson appointee that 
thinks they have a direction to charge off and spend money. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What was different than you expected? 

MR. BROWN: Much more cyclical than I thought. And when 
it's intensive, it's really, really intense around here. 

And the other thing, I think, was actually producing the 
budget itself. The physical production of getting that darn, fat 
book out was much, much more challenging than I thought it would 
be. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Speaking of this year's budget, you may 
have had an opportunity to talk about this in the Budget 
Committee, but we do rely on a significant amount of new federal 
money to make the numbers work. 

How optimistic are you about those working out? 

MR. BROWN: Well, we're requiring — relying on about 600 
— a little over 600 million. Immigrant health care is about 200 
million of that. The President had it in his budget in past 
years. There was never authorizing legislation. Congress, last 
year they passed authorizing legislation. Hopefully, well, we'll 
know more tomorrow when he presents his budget. 



Approximately 270 million for SSI/SSP, MOE relief to allow 
us to implement those grant cuts that have already been approved 
by the Legislature is probably more problematic, but we probably 
have one window of opportunity in that it's welfare reform. 
Federal welfare — the Federal Congress, because I know welfare 
reform, we'll get another shot at that. 

Reciprocal tax relief is worth approximately 85 million, 
and frankly, that makes such good government sense, I don't 
understand why Congress hasn't passed it already. 

The last item that the analyst raises, they have a 
slightly different number on felon money. And I think that's 
really a question, does Congress appropriate the 650 they 
authorized, or the 500 they appropriated last year? Again, the 
President's budget will give us some clue. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Question. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Mr. Brown, back in 1994, Senator Tom 
Campbell carried a matter passing a law which dealt with what I 
think is referred to as dynamic modeling. 

MR. BROWN: That's correct. 

SENATOR LEWIS: And Department of Finance was instructed 
to implement that in various aspects of forecasting and analysis. 

My understanding is that Finance has not yet completely 
taken that into account. Why the slowdown? 

MR. BROWN: Well, we issued the report that described 
dynamic model in the fall. I don't remember exactly which month. 

It will be used this year for tax bills. We will use it 
when the bills hit fiscal committee for this year's tax bill. 



4 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you use it for any of the 
Governor's proposals? 

MR. BROWN: We run it for the bank and corporate tax cut 
proposal . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And the PI? 

MR. BROWN: We don't have a PI proposal at this point in 
time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, last year's I mean. 

MR. BROWN: Last year, the model wasn't available. 

What we actually — Senator, what we actually run, we have 
a — in the book we published and distributed, there's actually a 
— that dynamic analysis assumed 100 million in tax relief for 
various taxes. So, you can multiply more or less. If you think 
you have a 200 million, you're going to basically double the 
15 impacts in that report. If you have a 400 bank and corporate, 
you can multiply them by 4. 

So, the report is out. It was completed, however, after 
the tax bills went through committee last year, so it was not 
used last year. It is ready this year. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: As I recall the numbers from last 
year's analysis, it was 18 percent return on bank and corp. , and 
1 percent on personal income. 

MR. BROWN: That's correct, returned to the state as far 
as revenues. Those were the numbers. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The current budget proposal seems to 
shift a little under $600 million from AFDC to other programs. 

Can you describe what the money came out of, and where did 
it go? 



MR. BROWN: Sure. 

The money — basically, the money was freed up by two 
occurrences on the AFDC side: getting a block grant which was 
based on a caseload higher than budgeted — higher than the block 
grants. The block grant was based on '95 caseloads. Our 
caseloads are lower. 

The second piece is because of federal welfare reform. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How much is attributable to that? 

MR. BROWN: Oh, 270-some million in the current year, and 
about the same in the budget year. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Almost half. 

MR. BROWN: I think that's correct, maybe little more. 

The rest is mostly attributable to grant cuts. The 
Legislature approved grant cuts, and we could actually not 
implement them until we got welfare reform. 

You take those two sums of moneys, it's in the 
neighborhood of 800 million over the two years, of which we 
respent about a third of it on welfare, and took two-thirds of it 
to other programs. Given Prop. 98, taking money off the top, in 
effect, it's hard to say which specific program any specific 
dollar applies to, but in general, they went to other Health and 
Welfare programs since Health and Welfare is the biggest piece of 
the non-98 part of the budget. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me ask about your experiences with 
the Youth Authority and Corrections generally. 

Is it possible to see the result of your experience in the 
budget, or are you more of a conduit for the Governor's 
philosophy? They may be the same. 



MR. BROWN: I think that, by and large, the budget is a 
caseload budget and reflects the laws that you all passed and the 
Governor signed. 

And the Corrections budget, essentially the size of it is 
driven by caseload. Some of the enhancements, I think, are 
programs. You can see boot camps. I played a fairly key role in 
getting the boot camps up and running in both Youth Authority and 
Corrections. 

I think there's — Young Men as Fathers was an initiative 
that I had while I was — my short tenure at Youth Authority, 
where we were going to give $3 million to local probation to 
teach some very high-risk young men the consequences of becoming 
fathers in the hopes that they either, a, understand the 
consequences, or b, think twice about the behavior. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Anything additional you'd like us to 
consider? 

MR. BROWN: I think those are the — I'd consider those 
the highlights. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: May I ask you a question, Mr. Brown? 

Based on your previous experience with the Youth and Adult 
Corrections Agency, how do you think that experience prepared you 
best to head the agency that you're heading now? 

MR. BROWN: I'm not sure it does, other than the fact that 
we spent a ton of time doing budgets. I mean, I think that most 
of us realize that the budget is what government does, so that if 
you're in a government program, you better know a lot about the 



budget process. 

In addition, I think the time I spent with the Analyst's 
Office, eight years, also. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you think that builds up any biases in 
your mind one way or the other in terms of how money should be 
shifted from one program to another? 

MR. BROWN: I don't think so. I think, obviously, I have 
a better knowledge of some of those programs. We all have a 
better knowledge in the things that we spend time with. And 
hopefully, if anything else, I'm probably a little more critical 
of some of those proposals because I know a lot about them. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What is your assessment of the principal 
causes of youth becoming career criminals? 

MR. BROWN: That's an awful tough question. I don't know 
that anybody knows the answer to that. 

I think education is certainly part of it. I think 
community is part of it. I think parenting is part of it. I 
think it's a very — crime is very, very complex, and multiple 
causes, and multiple solutions are necessary to deal with it. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you think any of this background and 
experience on your part, and the roots of the Governor in 
reference to Corrections and Youth Authority, has in any way 
molded his attitudes towards a change in welfare policies? 

MR. BROWN: I don't remember ever having a discussion with 
him like that, and I don't think it's certainly affected mine. 
We've discussed — I've spent a lot of time discussing 
Corrections with him. I don't think I've ever had a discussion 
with him that related the two subjects. 



8) 

SENATOR HUGHES: Because, you know, I of times wonder if 
people don't get enough money meet their needs, does it push then 
in the other direction, to take what is not rightfully theirs. 
Or does it, on the other hand, motivate them to be more self- 
sufficient. 

MR. BROWN: I think it probably does some of that to each 
group of people. It's a very complex subject, and — 

SENATOR HUGHES: The only reason I ask you that is because 
you've had experience in these other areas. 

MR. BROWN: It's — I mean, it's clear that if you went to 
the Youth Authority or Corrections, you would find a lot of 
people who were there who were from very difficult circumstances. 
Unfortunately, you'd also find some that are — you can find no 
good reason for them being locked up, and they certainly are 
locked up, you know, by background, by family wealth, by 
education. You find a whole mix of people. 

I ' d argue I think education is probably as important as — 
the one consistent theme I ran into, I think, as I trooped around 
those institutions was, with a few obvious exceptions, a vast 
number of very poorly educated young people. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Yes. What do you think about the 
education, which is not formalized, but the educational 
experiences that young people had, being in contact with 
criminals in the Corrections system, influences their direction 
in life? Do they then get more ideas on how to be a better 
citizen or how to be a better criminal? 

MR. BROWN: I think they get both. Some of them get — 
some of them — generally, I'll tell you what I learned very long 



ago in the Youth Authority from a very senior person. 

A third of the young people in the Youth Authority you can 
have a big impact on, what you do makes a lot of difference. A 
third of the young people are never coming back to the Youth 
Authority, no matter what you do, it was such a scary experience 
they want no part of it. And a third, no matter what you do, 
they're going to go right on to prison. They're going to be 
criminals the rest of their life. 

The only problem you have is, you don't know which young 
person is in which third. 

And I think that is as true when I heard it 20 years — 
almost 20 years ago, it's as true today as it was back then. 

SENATOR HUGHES: How could you make these programs better 
in terms of making them more motivated to become self-sufficient, 
productive citizens of our society? And where does that 
responsibility really lie? Is it at the local level, or is it at 
the state level, or a combination thereof? 

MR. BROWN: Most young people, fortunately, never make it 
to the state level. So, most young people who come into the 
criminal justice system end up at the local level, so obviously 
locals deal with it. The Youth Authority gets about — if I 
remember right — about 3,000 young people a year committed to 
it, which is a huge number compared to other states. It is not a 
huge number compared to the number of at-risk young people in 
this state. 

So, locals obviously have to deal with it as much as 
anything else. 

I think what Youth Authority can do, and what an 



101 

incarceration system can do, is give people an opportunity to 
develop some values and understand why the society functions the 
way it does. It's very difficult. It's a lot easier to teach 
somebody how to work a piece of machinery and so on, but dealing 
with values is much, much more difficult. And to understand why 
society works the way it does, and convince — let them come, I 
guess, to their own conclusion that it's the right way to live is 
very challenging. I think we can give them skills. Skills are 
pretty easy to give. You can teach skills. 

I think the Free Venture concept, which allows employers 
to come in and hire people on the facilities, certainly can teach 
people how to work in a work environment. The values are the 
challenging part of it. 

And I think the Youth Authority has a very good staff, and 
there's a lot of good counseling, and a lot of good group 
sessions going on. And some of it takes, and some of it doesn't. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you have any opportunity to discuss 
this job with predecessors, people who have held — 

MR. BROWN: Absolutely, at least three of them. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Three? What was their advice? Were 
they the same or different? 

MR. BROWN: I think it varied depending on how they viewed 
doing the job. I mean, they certainly made it — all three made 
it very clear who my number one customer would be. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The Governor. 

MR. BROWN: The Governor. 

In varying degrees, there was advice as it related to the 
kind of putting the budget together. I think Russ and Tom were 



Ill 

very clear on the difficulties of the Prop. 98 challenge. You 
know, putting aside the issue of, is it a good or a bad thing to 
spend more money on education — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Just the details. 

MR. BROWN: Just the constraint. So, they were slightly 
different, but I think it was — it was fairly consistent that, 
pay a lot of attention to the Governor, and try to make sure he 
isn't surprised, and try to do a budget that meets his needs as 
well as the needs of keeping this government running. This is 
also despite the fact that a budget is a — gets a lot of high 
level policy review. There's a lot of sort of nuts and bolts in 
the budget that are necessary just to keep the machinery of 
government going. 

We're the — and I'm sure you've seen, we're the seventh 
biggest government in the world. It's not a — keeping that 
machinery going takes a fair amount of detail. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: In that respect, I would like to offer 
compliments of colleagues and staff that have made the comment 
that they are pleased both by the professionalism of their 
contacts with the Department, and also the minimum of 
partisanship that they experience, that it seems to be trying to 
serve everybody regardless of party affiliation, or region, or 
whatever . 

So, for all of your group, I'd like to compliment you from 
our group. 

MR. BROWN: Thank you. I appreciate that, and I'm sure 
the staff most certainly appreciates that comment. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Anything else? Senator Ayala. 



12 

SENATOR AYALA: Just one more time, you have your Bachelor 
of Science degree, as well as a degree in business 
administration. 

How do you think it assists you in helping you with the 
responsibilities of the Governor's chief fiscal policy advisor? 

MR. BROWN: I think both that degree and my public 
administration degree taught me the importance of good — and 
really, even more certainly, Alan Post taught me the importance 
of good analysis and good facts, that you have to bring good 
information forward for decision makers, that you have to collect 
the right information. 

You have to put it in some sort of form that's usable. 
You have to be able to lay out options, and pros and cons to 
those options, and make a recommendation, but really, that the 
fundamental part of it is gathering good information. 

And I think whether you're a business person, or a public 
policy person, or whatever, the kind of fundamental, basic thing 
you do is gather the relevant and best possible information that 
you can come up with, put it in some sort of usable format, and I 
think those are skills I got out of all of that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right. 

John, do you want to make a motion on this matter? 

SENATOR LEWIS: Move we recommend confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right. 

Is there anyone who'd care to testify? 

Call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 



13 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. Senator 
Hughes . 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, and keep up the good work. 

MR. BROWN: Thank you, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We had scheduled Roberta Mendonca for 
today, the Chief of Labor Standards Enforcement. I suggested 
that we postpone that one for a time to try to resolve some of 
the underlying disputes that are complicating consideration of 
her confirmation. So, we won't hear that one today, and it will 
be rescheduled at a different date. 

Mr. Sylvester is next. 

Senator Leslie, are you here for that purpose? 

SENATOR LESLIE: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Come on up. 

You know, though, that he has at least two kids that are 
attorneys, two out of three? 

SENATOR LESLIE: Well, I didn't know that. In fact — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Oh, no, I take that back. A CPA, a 
nurse, and an attorney. 

MR. SYLVESTER: It's called a balanced portfolio. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, he's taken care of all of his 
personal needs here. 



14) 

Senator, go ahead. 

SENATOR LESLIE: Thank you. 

This is a very happy day for me, to be able to come and 
speak on behalf of Ed Sylvester for the Transportation Commission 
appointment. 

In fact, I've been a Member of the Legislature, and I'm 
just starting my 11th year, and this is the first time I've ever 
come to a confirmation hearing. I've never done this before. I 
saved it for the right occasion, and Ed is certainly that 
occasion. 

One thing I wanted to just draw to your attention that I 
think is worth noting is that the laws relating to the 
Transportation Commission require that the membership of the 
Transportation Commission be from throughout the State of 
California. 

However, the last member of the Transportation Commission 
that came from a rural part of California was Richard Azevedo, 
who was from Auburn, and a Democrat whom I asked to have 
reappointed about ten years ago now, but he wasn't reappointed. 
And it's been all this time that, actually, we've been out of 
compliance. And of course myself, along with other Senators and 
Legislators from rural areas have made this known to the 
administration. But for whatever reason, it's taken this time 
for an appointment from rural California. 

We worked with the administration in trying to help them 
by doing our own little search of qualified people, and submitted 
several names to Governor Wilson for his consideration of people 
who would be very excellently well qualified, who have the right 



151 

demeanor, and who really have the interest of the entire state, 
but the knowledge to bring a rural point of view into the mix. 

Certainly with the number of miles of highways that are in 
rural California, it's critical that we have someone who 
understands this and can relate the kinds of issues that are 
sometimes different than they are in other parts of the state. 

So, Ed Sylvester's name was one the ones submitted. He's 
a fine individual. He's knowledgeable in transportation issues. 
You actually know more about him than I do, based upon the 
research that's probably before you. But I know that it would 
tell you that he's well qualified. 

He's highly respected in the community, not just in Nevada 
County, but throughout all of California, and certainly the rural 
parts of the state. I think he'd do an outstanding job, and it's 
a real pleasure for me to recommend him to you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. Sylvester, if you want to start with any opening 
statement, that would be appropriate. 

MR. SYLVESTER: I might just give you a brief overview of 
my background. 

I live in Nevada County. I've lived there for over 30 
years. I'm a civil engineer in private practice there. I have 
an office in Nevada City and one in Truckee. 

I was appointed to the Commission in March and served 
there since that time. I'm now serving as the Vice Chair. 

Prior to that, I was on the Nevada County Transportation 
Commission for over 15 years, and on the Technical Advisory 
Committee. I also served on the California Alliance for Advanced 



16 

Transportation System Board for a year prior to my appointment tc 
the CTC. 

Basically, I've spent virtually all my career in 
transportation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, there's probably lots of things 
we could talk about, I suppose. 

Have you been on a year yet? 

MR. SYLVESTER: Since March, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Almost a year. 

What are your observations regarding the Transportation 
Commission and what role it has, or what concerns you may have 
developed as to its ability to meet the challenges? 

MR. SYLVESTER: Well, I think the fundamental, of course, 
is the lack of funding and funds. But it's an enormously complex 
problem, but I guess I'm encouraged that we're coming into an 
era, I think, of there's going to be some great progress made, 
hopefully, in transportation overall. 

I look back at years ago, in the late '50s and '60s, and I 
worked for Caltrans when I was going to college. And that was a 
great time in California transportation, and I think we're on the 
eve of that again. 

It's a tremendously complex subject, obviously, and I 
bring a rural perspective to that. But also, I think I have a 
feel for the overall. 

I think the biggest challenge is to try to get to places, 
see what's really happening, and get a feel for where we can best 
put the money. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I note that a couple years back, the 



Commission made a recommendation to the Legislature — this 
predates you — basically suggesting that there's perhaps as much 
as a $12 billion annual need for additional funding of highway 
and mass transit projects. 

Does it feel that way to you? I don't know about the 
specific dollar amount, but does it feel that way to you, that 
there's a pretty substantial unmet need that we need to figure 
out? 

MR. SYLVESTER: Well, yes, Mr. Chairman. And it's in so 
many sectors. It's not — I think it's so important that we 
maintain those facilities that we have. We have a tremendous 
investment, so as you know, the Commission, in view of all, put 
more money into the SHA program. We're going to take a look at 
that again. And I think that's of prime importance, to maintain 
our basics. 

But from there, it's just virtually expedential at this 
point, the needs that we have out there to provide. 

As NAFTA has come, is moving forward, we're seeing an 
additional need was built into that, the need for economic 
development overall statewide. So, transportation has really 
become a major issue, I think, in the well being of the state. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Obviously one sub-set is seismic 
retrofit. Some of us have special worries because of the nature 
of where ever our districts may fall. I guess everybody's 
concerned whether they have a bridge affected, or funding that 
2€| could be for something else that might be at risk. 

27 Do you have a sense of what's happening at CTC now with 

28 respect to programming the STIP, and how seismic retro will fit 



18] 

into the package? 

MR. SYLVESTER: Well, basically we're waiting for 
resolution of that issue between the Legislature and the Governor 
which will open up a lot of work for the Commission in terms of 
the determination of the fund balance and then moving on to the 
STIP. And so, we're quite anxious that that be resolved, because 
we're — in a sense, we're stalemated from really moving forward 
and moving a lot of that money out into pavement and the other 
transportation needs. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, keep pushing. I'd like to see it 
resolving, too. 

MR. SYLVESTER: Absolutely. It's really critical. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there questions from Members? 
Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Sylvester, the voters of California 
rejected the last two bond issues for transportation. Obviously, 
we're in dire need of some financial assistance. 

Do you have any suggestions or ideas that you would prefer 
in terms of enhancing the moneys for transportation in 
California? Would you prefer a bond issue, gasoline sales tax? 
How do you think we ought to address that? 

MR. SYLVESTER: Well, Senator, I don't — I mean, there's 
all those combinations of things, and they affect different 
regions differently in how people perceive those. 

I think that one of the main things that we can do is to 
work within some of the funding that we have. Recently, we 
looked at the SHA program, looked for some new, innovative ways 
to improve deliveries and to decrease the amount of moneys that 



191 

are expended on overhead and engineering. 

I think that a lot of the areas like that, where we can 
show that we can make the best use out of the transportation 
dollars we have, and then it might be interesting to see how 
different votes for increased moneys come on line when we show 
those kind of performances. 

SENATOR AYALA: There is a great need for seismic 
retrofitting and maintenance. I'm told we can't continue 
maintaining and building new highways with existing resources. 

I don't think we can just sit back and watch our 
transportation highways and bridges deteriorate any further, so 
we'll have to do something. And you have no idea how we can 
shore up our revenues? 

MR. SYLVESTER: Well, that's really outside the province 
of the Commission. But I'm sure that, as time goes on, we'll 
begin to see maybe some avenues willing to open up as 
transportation becomes more and more a concern for the citizens 
of the state. Then they may become more receptive to additional 
— putting forth additional funding. 

SENATOR AYALA: So, you have an idea of the best way to 
go. I know that your responsibility's not to raise revenues, but 
to spend them with the STIP recommendations. 

MR. SYLVESTER: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: But sooner or later, we're going to have 
to come up with a way to raise the funds for those problems as 
they exist today, and I just wondered if you had any ideas which 
is the best way to go? 

MR. SYLVESTER: Well, again, that's a little outside the 



201 

province of the — of what the Commission's responsibilities to 
do, but again, I go back to certain areas of the state that see 
things somewhat differently. 

I know in the rural counties, for us to pass bond 
measures, sales tax measures, it's very difficult because of the 
makeup of a lot of retirees and fixed income people. So, they're 
looking at those kind of expenditures as being something — any 
issue like that being critical. 

But I do think that you do — you see a need. You saw the 
proposition pass on seismic retrofit when the people really were 
aware of the kind of problem that existed. So, I think the more 
that we work towards improving the system and being more 
efficient with the dollars, the more likely we'll see more — a 
move towards generation of the different funds. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There's a segment of our materials that 
I ask about just because I think it's probably constructive to 
talk about the problem publicly, and it's the Vector Engineering 
dispute. 

We were contacted by some press person that suggested it 
illustrated a potential conflict of interest. And while that 
doesn't appear to be true, at least from my examination of the 
documents, I wanted to make sure you had an opportunity to 
comment on the matter. 

MR. SYLVESTER: Well, if you've seen — the comments 
probably came from our county counsel and probably from the 
Attorney General's Office, that that was reviewed at some length, 
and there was a settlement that was reached, but it was an 
unfortunate situation where we have a contract, and some four 



21] 

months — and portions of the contract. And some four months 
after the project started, it was given, and there was — a lot 
of it was given to the Board of Supervisors, of which there was 
some concern expressed that there was a potential conflict 
because I served on a county committee that had some 
responsibilities for the landfill. 

But after everyone looked through it, they came to that 
resolution, and in fact the agreement is very specific in all 
cases that there was no indication whatsoever that there was a 
conflict. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I agree with your assessment. I just 
thought it should be publicly mentioned. 

Yes, Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Can you think of anything that we, as a 
state, can do to reduce congestion, delay, in our highways? 
People always say, "They're always fixing something, and we're 
always delayed. We never know whether to leave for work an hour 
in advance, or an hour and a half in advance." 

How do you get around this and do the work that we're 
supposed to do? Do you have any ideas? Are you coming up with 
any solutions to any of these problems? 

Because some of the freeways are just impossible. 

MR. SYLVESTER: Right. 

Well, again, I haven't really worked on this specific, but 
I know what you mean from my own private practice to try to make 
that work. But I guess it's somewhat of a Catch 22, in that if 
people are out there working and fixing the roads, that's a 
positive thing. And on the other hand, it's a negative with 



22 

those that have to deal with it. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Is it the time, the clock time that it's 
done in, or could Caltrans get up earlier and do what they'd have 
to do? Or should they go later and do it? Or what should we do? 
Are you dealing with that at all? 

MR. SYLVESTER: Well, we're not dealing with it all, but 
it's obviously a concern because that's something where there's a 
public perception of how things are done. 

But I think if you look down in San Francisco and the Bay 
Shore and other areas, where it's very critical, as you're 
pointing out, with the volumes of traffic and the delays, that 
they're beginning to work the off-hour shifts and at night. But 
even then, it's still a problem because there's just so much 
traffic at all hours of the day. 

But that — there's a real awareness coming about, and 
like I say, it's kind of a — as long as we're out there fixing 
the roads, that's a positive thing. And we'll eventually get the 
relief with that. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Then the last question I have is the one 
that all my constituents and everyone in the state becomes 
concerned about. If we do need to raise gasoline tax to 
adequately maintain our roads and highways, because people are 
saying, "California's no longer what it used to be. There are 
potholes, potholes everywhere." 

So, do you think we have to raise the raise the gas tax, 
or do you think we can — 

MR. SYLVESTER: Well, I think, as the Chairman pointed 
out, the deficit is — we're falling more and more behind all the 



23 

time. So, as you see more fuel efficient vehicles, and you see 
all of the factors that are running against us all the time, 
we've got to come to the point somewhere to find out — to set up 
— to have some more funding, because even with the alternative 
forms of transportation to the automobile, that's still not 
keeping up with the pace of where we are. 

So, at some point I think we're going to be in a stage 
where people are going to say, "Okay, it's time now that we begin 
to — we're going to have to put some money into making this 
thing work . " 

So, I think we may be getting closer to that all the time 
I hope so, because we just can't afford to fall any farther 
behind. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Sylvester, I want to ask, just to 
figure out if this is truly what it says. I was reading your 
personal vita. Between '68 and '75, when you were Bertino & 
Sylvester, responsible for all engineering faucets? 

MR. SYLVESTER: Faucets? 

[ Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Were you really in charge of faucets 
for the company? I notice you were doing sewage, drainage, and 
so on. 

MR. SYLVESTER: Well, when you have an organization as 
small as mine, and you live in a rural county, you can be in 
charge of faucets any given day. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You might look at that. It may be the 
word you meant. 



24j 

In the last year, is there any particular issue that came 
before the Commission that stands out in your mind as the most 
difficult decision, where you had to struggle and weigh and think 
about it? Anything that stands out? 

MR. SYLVESTER: Well, there's been a lot of them. 

I think one of the — one issue we have looked at is some 
of the cost overruns that have happened on projects. And the 
Chairman charged me with the duty of talking to — of taking a 
look at some of those issues. 

So, I went out in the field and met with the engineers in 
the field, and expressed the concern we have over expenditures of 
those things. And even though that was difficult in the sense of 
seeing the amount of moneys, when it was over I felt a sense of 
accomplishment in the sense that I felt that we were making some 
headway, that we expressed concern that this was happening. 

And hopefully, I can continue to bring that kind of 
perspective, because as a civil engineer, I can go out and talk 
to another engineer and — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: More authority or whatever, expertise. 

MR. SYLVESTER: And we're not giving each other different 
stories. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you have a sense of what the 
principal cause might be of those kind of overruns? Have you had 
enough different — 

MR. SYLVESTER: I'm sure, obviously, it varies from 
project to project, and that sort of thing. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there any systemic things? 

MR. SYLVESTER: Yeah, I think we're beginning to find 



25| 

some, some on the front-end of the design phase. Many of those 
were, for whatever reason, began to see some of those, and so 
we've started to address to issues. And hopefully, it'll be 
effective, because there's a lot of projects that go out there. 
And if we can get them properly done, get the base done properly 
up front, it makes a world of difference. And I've experienced 
that all my career, that you'd better get it right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So there may be under-estimating of 
potential costs in the early design? Is that what that means? 

MR. SYLVESTER: Yeah. Many times, exactly. It's because 
if you don't have proper information that show where the red 
flags might be or where it's critical, then you usually don't do 
the sufficient research and that. 

And so, I think there are some systemic things out there 
that can be adjusted. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How much time do you estimate you 
devote a week, or a month, or whatever, to work that's 
Commission-related? 

MR. SYLVESTER: Well, I guess it's probably been the 
better part of two days a week now, just because I've got to come 
up with the learning curve. I've been fortunate in having been 
around a commission, I understand some of the acronyms, but — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good for you, though. That's a lot of 
time. 

MR. SYLVESTER: It is. It's a lot of time, but I — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're donating that, in effect, to the 
state and the citizens. That's very commendable. 

Do you get lobbied a lot on issues? Do people seek you 



26j 

out, other than just bumping into you when you're in the 
neighborhood? 

MR. SYLVESTER: Well, I've had some of that. But, of 
course, I live in Nevada City, so it's not conducive to drop-ins, 
but of course, when I've been to Commission meetings, I've had — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, and people interacting. 

MR. SYLVESTER: — conversations with people who, you 
know, have their own interests. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Who do you hear from? Are there 
categories? 

MR. SYLVESTER: Mostly transportation agencies. They're 
the ones that, of course, are most interested, the large ones and 
small ones. And of course, it's been gratifying in a sense that 
a lot of the rural transportation people have come and talked to 
me, and I've been the liaison to the Rural Counties Task Force. 
And that's given me some insight and an opportunity to meet more 
closely and listen to their concerns. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess the initial rationale for 
having a CTC was that it would be an independent group, a fairly 
nonpolitical decision making group in charge of transportation 
planning. 

Is it your sense that you're given plenty of space to 
develop your own positions by the appointing authorities? 

MR. SYLVESTER: That's certainly been my experience to 
this point. I've been, you know, I've looked at things and 
discussed them with staff, and gone through issues, and done 
whatever homework I need to do to try to best understand it. And 
up to this point, I've had a very open — I haven't had any 



27 

problems in that respect. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Anything else? Anyone wish to comment 
at all at present? 

SENATOR LEWIS: I'd like to move confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, call the roll, if you will. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. Senator 
Hughes . 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good luck, sir. 

MR. SYLVESTER: Thank you very much. I appreciate the 
kindness of your staff and everyone's staff in meeting with me 
beforehand . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you for your public service. 
It's quite commendable. 

MR. SYLVESTER: Thank you, sir. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
3:45 P.M.] 

— 00O00 — 



28 



CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 

« 

the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
this / &^ day of February, 1997. 



:zak 

Shorthand Reporter" 



^EVELYN J. "fefzi 



315-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 315-R when ordering. 



LS oo 

M 
I1t7 

WO. (o 



DOCUMENTS D€PT. 

MAR 2 7 1997 

SAN FR&NO&CO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



^ HEARING 

SENATE^ULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1997 
2:17 P.M. 



316-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1997 
2:17 P.M. 



Reported by 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR JAMES BRULTE 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

ALI RAZI, Trustee 
California State University 

BOB GURIAN, Legislative Director 
California Faculty Association 

DR. ROLLAND K. HAUSER, Vice President 
California Faculty Association 



Ill 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 

ALI RAZI, Trustee 

California State University 1 

Background 1 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Students Need Six to Seven Years to 

Complete Requirements for Bachelor's Degrees ... 1 

CSU Trustees' Position on Proposition 209 2 

Role of Faculty, Students and Community 

in Administration of CSU 2 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

One Suprising Thing Learned during 

Tenure on Board of Trustees 3 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Compensation at CSU 3 

Current Programs or Discussion to Implement 
Diversity in Faculty and Student Body 4 

Faculty Worry about Proportion of Positions 

Held by Part-time Instructors 4 

Witnesses with Concerns: 

BOB GURIAN, Legislative Director 

California Faculty Association 5 

DR. ROLLAND K. HAUSER, Vice President 

California Faculty Association 5 

Motion to Confirm 9 

Committee Action 9 

Termination of Proceedings 10 

Certificate of Reporter 11 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
--00O00 — 

On the Governor's appointees, our first appointee 
today for confirmation is Mr. Ali Razi, Trustee of the 
California State University system. 

Mr. Razi, welcome. 

MR. RAZI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Would you like to give some kind 
of an opening statements? 

MR. RAZI: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Members. I have a 
strange name and a heavy accent, so I would like to say few 
words why I'd like to do this. 

I'm son of an educator. My father spent all his 
life, the most important thing to my family was education. And 
I wouldn't have had the opportunity to get the kind of education 
I had if I didn't have a scholarship. 

To be part of a team whose mission is affordable, 
accessible, and quality in our education is something I love, 
and that's why I'm here. 

SENATOR LEWIS: All right, thank you very much. 

Any Members of the Committee have any initial 
questions for Mr. Razi? 

SENATOR HUGHES: I do. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Yes, Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Students are taking six to seven 
years to obtain their degrees when, years ago, they didn't stay 
in school that long to complete a bachelor's degree. 

We are at very scarce resources now. What do you 



think the system can do to alleviate a system like this? 

MR. RAZI: One of the missions is the 
accessibility to education. 

With long distance learning, improvement on long 
distance learning, and a center like Stockton of the partnership 
which has been approved for Stockton Development Center, these 
are, if I understood the question, Senator, correctly, how can 
we help the students, which majority are now working and 
studying. And we need to make it easier for them for long 
distance learning, and for a tidal wave future expansion, taking 
the expansion where there are more demands for it. 

SENATOR HUGHES: How would you characterize the 
CSU Trustees' position on Proposition 209, affirmative action 
and preferential treatment? How would you characterize it? 

MR. RAZI: The Board has checked and made sure 
that, one way or another, the CSU is abiding to the law. And 
that in our system, we do not have any program that would be 
affected with it. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What role is played by the 
faculty in the administration of CSU, and what role is there for 
students, and also for the community and business interests? 

MR. RAZI: Shared government. The involvement of 
faculty, which is very important part of success of the mission, 
and the student, participation of the students which we are all 
about . 

That's why we are all about at CSU, and 
especially with the shortage of project and resources, 
involvement of community, especially through the alumni group, 



the program that has started, and I think there's a great 
potential for it to try to educate the public in the importance 
of the mission of CSU. 

They all are important to be involved in this 
process. 

SENATOR HUGHES: No further questions, thank you. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Mr. Razi, in your tenure on the 
CSU Board, what's the one thing, perhaps, that you've learned 
that's really surprised you about the system? 

MR. RAZI: Probably the thing the thing that has 
affected me most was in one of the — I took part in the 
graduation at Long Beach State University, when Bob Maxson asked 
those who are the first college graduate to stand up. Forty 
percent of the kids stood up. 

That was the greatest, I think. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Senator Ayala, do you have any 
questions? 

SENATOR AYALA: I have no questions. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Welcome, Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What has been your experience 
with regard to compensation at the CSU system? Do you think 
that the compensation right now is sufficient to attract 
quality? Are we having a problem with getting it right now? 

MR. RAZI: Based on the California Post-Secondary 
Education Commission, we need to make sure we have a competitive 
position for the faculty and compared to the resources. And 
what we have, I mean, the Trustees have to decide based on 
that. 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm trying to catch up here. 

Have all Members of the Committee had an 
opportunity to ask Mr. Razi any questions? 

There were ones I circled, but I heard at least 
some of them as I walked in by Senator Hughes on Proposition 
209. 

I'm not sure I heard what current programs or 
discussion there may be that would try to implement diversity in 
the faculty and student body, independently from all the 209 
pro-con debate. 

Are there things happening that show some concern 
about diversity in student body and faculty that we should know 
about? 

MR. RAZI: Mr. Chairman, the mission of CSU for 
an affordable and accessible higher education means that 
everyone should be able to have the opportunity. And they 
have — it has been checked to make sure that, I mean, the 
whole program is to afford. 

We don't have a problem as far as gender issue or 
race issue in CSU. There's not a problem. 

Our mission is to make sure — I mean, when you 
provide accessible and affordable education, you are really 
allowing the diversity. I mean, this is this whole mission. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: At the campus in my district, 
that is Hayward State College, I've recently been approached by 
professors with a complaint that may well be a problem in many 
other campuses, but basically, the worry was the proportion of 
teaching positions that are held by part-time instructors. So, 



there are a lot of no benefits, lower pay, and so on, that are a 
result. 

Did this already get talked about earlier? 

Is this something you hear about as a Trustee? 

MR. RAZI: Yes. I received, Senator, 
Mr. Chairman, I received a letter. And I have not looked into 
it. 

I really don't have an answer for that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, I think you'll probably 
hear more and more about that, or people that would hope for 
secure and appropriately compensated jobs that reflect 
professional teaching and research, rather than simply relying 
on part-time faculty. 

That's not to say the part-time the faculty can't 
do a good job, but it really is a different kind of an 
educational institution if the bulk of the positions are of that 
sort. 

Anyone present who wishes to comment? Yes, sir. 

MR. GURIAN: Members, I'm Bob Gurian, the 
Legislative Director of the California Faculty Association. 

Today, the testimony for the CFA will be given by 
Roily Hauser, Vice President from Chico State University. 

DR. HAUSER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senators, 
and Trustee Razi. 

I'm Dr. Roily Hauser. I'm a Vice President of 
the California Faculty Association. I'm a Professor of Geo 
Sciences at Chico State University. 

I'd like to thank the Committee for the 



opportunity to testify today. The CFA wants to work closely 
with the CSU Board of Trustees on the team to secure the best 
possible public support for the CSU. 

I would like to make just six brief points. 

I've come here today to share CFA's general 
concerns regarding recent actions of the California State 
University's Trustees. 

I want to make it clear at the outset that CFA is 
not testifying against Trustee Razi's confirmation at all, but 
rather to inform the Committee that the faculty believe all 
future confirmations of sitting Trustees should be based on 
evidence that that sitting Trustee's commitment is to 
maintaining a high quality teaching faculty in the CSU. 

The second point I want to be very clear about. 
CFA's testimony today flows from CFA's single top priority. We 
seek the highest and best quality education for the students of 
the CSU, and this priority, in turn, means that the CSU must 
employ and retain the highest quality teaching faculty. 

The third point is that CFA is concerned that CSU 
Trustees seem to be imposing a factory model on the University. 
Great universities are not factories. Instead, they have a 
tradition, which Trustee Razi has referred to, of shared 
governance, where faculty concerns regarding curriculum and 
resource allocation play a pivotal role in University decisions. 

It seems to us that in the CSU, these fundamental 
decisions are made by administrators far removed from campus 
life. 

While the Trustees do allow for faculty to 



testify briefly at Trustee meetings, often the major decisions 
are made by administrators and later are routinely approved by 
the Board of Trustees. 

The fourth point has already been raised. It 
concerns the area of faculty compensation. 

According to the California Post-Secondary 
Education Commission, faculty in the CSU are almost eleven 
percent behind our comparison institutions. Yet, the CSU 
Trustees have formulated to date no plan to close that gap. 

Fifth, the CSU's initial bargaining proposal 
would further widen the salary gap for most of the faculty, not 
close it. The proposal contains no across-the-board increase. 

Instead, the CSU Trustees propose a plan where 
administrators, who are remote from the classroom itself, would 
determine all faculty pay raises. Shared governance apparently 
is being scrapped for a factory model, which is not appropriate 
for higher education. 

Finally, it is our hope, and we hope this 
fervently, that Trustee Razi, when confirmed, will look closely 
into these important matters and will be open to meetings with 
faculty so that he can address issues as a Trustee with an 
understanding of the faculty's opinions in addition to the 
opinions of CSU and administrative personnel. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 
The faculty has always found the California Legislature 
interested and willing to act on faculty concerns. Hopefully, 
the Trustees will also. 

Thank you. 



8 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Doctor. 

I might mention that one of the formative 
experiences for me as a young student at UC Berkeley some years 
ago was reading a publication of President Clark Kerr in which 
he compared the University to a tack factory and said explicitly 
that we're mass producing tacks. 

Well, I disagreed and was among those who sat at 
Sproul Hall to make a point when there was no other way to get 
the University leaders to listen to students that thought they 
deserved a richer role in governance and to be considered more 
than tacks. Anyhow, there's a long history of administrators. 

I've never seen anything like that from 
Dr. Munitz. He seems at least to not exhibit the tack factory 
philosophy, that I'm aware of. 

SENATOR BRULTE : That ' s why I don ' t have a sharp 
edge and you do. 

[Laughter. ] 

DR. HAUSER: Sometimes we just wish the 
opportunity — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: He went to the door knob 
factory. 

[Laughter. ] 

DR. HAUSER: — to make sure the item is turned 
around so you know for sure which end you're looking at. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. 

Are there specific policies that you want to 
mention, other than the general one you mentioned with respect 
to funding? 



DR. HAUSER: Well, we think that the quality of 
education in the CSU, its most formative factor is the quality 
of the faculty. 

The compensation and the work we do in the CSU is 
known now across the country, which is the market we're going to 
be drawing our new people from, and we wish to have the 
California State University in the future be a place where 
academic careers will be valued by the state and help keep the 
economic engine of the state alight. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any other questions? 

Thank you very much. 

What's the pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR BRULTE: Move it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion to recommend 
confirmation to the Floor. 

Call the roll, if you would. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 



SECRETARY WEBB 
SENATOR BRULTE 
SECRETARY WEBB 
SENATOR HUGHES 
SECRETARY WEBB 



Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 

Aye. 

Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 

Aye. 

Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 
SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, good luck, and we wish 



10 

you well. 

Thank you for your public commitment and time 

that you're spending in this way. I know it's substantial, and 

it's commendable that you do. 

MR. RAZI: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

Members. I appreciate it. 

[Thereupon. This portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 2:25 P.M.] 
— 00O00 — 



11 



CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 



I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 

, 1997. 









thand Reporter 



316-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 316-R when ordering. 



a*. 7 



^HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



DQCUPAFMTS DHPT. 

MAR 2 7 1997 

SAW FRANO^CO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

MONDAY, MARCH 3, 1997 
2:30 RM. 



317-R 



Reported by 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



MONDAY, MARCH 3, 1997 
2:30 P.M. 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR JAMES BRULTE 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

JANET G. NICHOLAS, Member 
State Board of Education 

SENATOR BETTY KARNETTE 

SENATOR MARIAN BERGESON 

BOB WELLS 

Association of California School Administrators 

JOHN MOCKLER 

Association of American Publishers 

ROBERT M. LYNCH, Editor and Publisher 
The Sonoma Index Tribune 

MARGARET DeARMAND, President 
California Mathematics Council 

HENRY L. ALDER, Professor 
University of California, Davis 



Ill 

INDEX 

Page 

Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 

JANET G. NICHOLAS, Member 
State Board of Education 

Introduction and Support by 

SENATOR MARIAN BERGESON 1 

Witnesses in Support: 

BOB WELLS 

Association of California School Administrators 3 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Disagreement over Math Curriculum 4 

JOHN MOCKLER 

Association of American Publishers 5 

ROBERT M. LYNCH, Editor and Publisher 

Sonoma Index Tribune 7 

Witness in Opposition: 

MARGARET DeARMOND, President 

California Mathematics Council 9 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Mention of Ideology and Political 

Agenda in Statement 13 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Name of Organization 14 

First Appearance before Legislature .... 15 

Volunteer Teacher 16 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Structure, Function and Membership of 

Math Framework Committee 17 

Selection of Committee Memberships 17 



IV 



Composition of Math Framework Committee 18 

Change in Make-up of Committee since 

Appointee ' s Tenure on Board 19 

Definition of New-new Math 20 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Reason for Removing 10 Recommended Members 

on Math Framework Committee 20 

Questions of MS. DeARMOND by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Long Existence of Mathematics Council 27 

Goal of New Math Framework Committee to 

Help Raise Students' Test Scores in Math 27 

Mathematics Council Resistant to Change 28 

Questions of MS. De ARMOND by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Causes of Decline in Math Scores 28 

Questions of MS. DeARMOND by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Mathematics Council Argument that There Is 
Something Fundamentally Wrong 30 

Questions of MS. DeARMOND by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Vote of 10-11 for Chair of Frameworks 

Committee Showing Balance 31 

What Was Taught in Math in '50s and '60s 32 

Questions of MS. DeARMOND by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Mathematics Council Appears to be 

Resistant to Change, Despite Low Test 

Scores by Fourth Graders 34 

New Framework Committee Trying New 

Ideas, Avenues, and Innovations 35 

Questions of MS. DeARMOND by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Change in California's Demographics 36 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Who Made Final Decision on Make-up of 

Framework Committee 37 



Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Process by Which Membership Changes to 

Framework Committee Were Made 37 

Better Ways in Which Membership Changes 

Could Have Been Made 38 

Questions of MS. DeARMOND by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Does Mathematics Council Blame Appointee 

for Recent Student Test Scores 39 

Questions of MS. DeARMOND by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Philosophy of Mathematics Council Is 

Emphasis on Traditional Computational 

Skills 40 

Witness in Support: 

HENRY L. ALDER, Professor 

University of California at Davis 41 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE: 

Frameworks Committee Originally 

Set Up with No Elementary Teachers 43 

Response by MS. NICHOLAS 43 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Teacher Trainers on Frameworks Committee 44 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

How Curriculum and Teaching Methods 

Should Be Changed to Improve Mathematics 46 

Who Should Change 46 

Use of Standards 47 

Goals for Education 48 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Quote in New Article that New Math 

Was a Cruel Joke 49 

Memorization Versus Interesting and 

Meaningful Math 51 



VI 



Need for Teachers to Inspire and 

Motivate Students 52 

Insistence on Empirical Basis and 

Pilot Testing of Framework's Product 52 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Importance of Problem-Solving Skills 53 

Respect for Individuality 55 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

View on Voucher Education 56 

Hours per Month Spent on Board-related 
Activities 56 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Understanding of California's Demographics 

and Composition of Various Classrooms 58 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Money Needed per Child for Class Size 

Reduction 58 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Compton Experience 59 

Motion to Confirm 59 

Committee Action 60 

Termination of Proceedings 60 

Certificate of Reporter 61 

Addendum: Letter of Support from DORENE MUSILLI, 
Trustee, Sonoma Valley Unified School 
District, Dated March 3, 1997 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Janet Nicholas is next. 
Senator Bergeson, do you want to come up. 

SENATOR BERGESON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 
Members of the Committee. 

It's with a great deal of pleasure that I appear 
before you, and particular pleasure to be able to introduce to 
you Janet Nicholas. I would like to briefly indicate my strong 
support for her confirmation. 

I've known her for many years. I've found her to 
be a person of tremendous integrity and intelligence. And she 
served many years of public service in demonstrating her strong 
leadership abilities. 

She has an impressive educational background, 
with an economic degree from UCLA. She's also very experienced 
as a business woman, a proprietor of the Nicholas Vineyards, as 
an economist specializing in export marketing development and 
facility planning, land use, financial advisor, which provided 
the background and the expertise for local government service. 
She served as Chairperson to the Advisory Committee on Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency, as a member of the California Council 
on Criminal Justice, and as a member of the Board of Prison 
Terms. 

Also, and one of areas that I, of course, take 
great delight in recommending her, is County Board of 
Supervisor. We worked together on many local government issues, 
and I always found her to be at the forefront in her leadership 



ability and promoting good land use policy. Also, she served as 
a Sonoma County Planning Commissioner. 

She's a people person. She builds coalitions. 
She's a consensus builder. She's very much oriented towards 
results. She's an outspoken proponent for strong educational 
initiatives that stress basic, fundamental skills, and I think 
she understands all too well that our students need to be well 
grounded in order to be successful. 

The bottom line, Mr. Chairman and Members, is 
that she wants to do what's best for kids and students. She's 
dedicated and committed to this end, and I know that she will 
serve the purposes of the State of California very well in this 
position. I would heartily recommend her confirmation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to express my 
thoughts. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any questions for Senator 
Bergeson? 

All right, Ms. Nicholas, do you want to begin 
with an opening comment? 

Marian, it's up to you whether you wish to stay 



or not. 



hands 



SENATOR BERGESON: Thank you, I leave you in good 



MS. NICHOLAS: Thank you, Senator. 

I don ' t have an opening comment . I ' d be happy to 
answer any questions that you or the Committee have, and look 
forward to doing that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think maybe it would be 



constructive to focus our thoughts, to ask for two or three 
supporters and two or three people who have raised concerns/ 
maybe comment/ and that would allow us to maybe focus in on the 
more relevant considerations. 

I don't know if you've designated anyone, or if 
you're aware of someone who wanted, other than Senator Bergeson, 
to offer supportive commentary. 

Could we hear from a couple of people in that 
respect? 

MR. WELLS: Good afternoon. I'm Bob Wells with 
the California School Administrators Association. 

Pleased to be here today to support Janet 
Nicholas for the State Board of Education. We would encourage 
you to vote yes and recommend her confirmation to the full 
Senate. 

We've gone through an extensive process, both 
working together over the last ten or eleven months as Ms. 
Nicholas has been on the State Board, and also over the last 
month or so in talking about the issues, about confirmation, and 
how we should work together. 

We've been very impressed through all of that at 
the hard work. Not every Board Member devotes as much time and 
energy to understanding the issues that are before the State 
Board of Education as does Ms. Nicholas. We find that to be a 
terribly important thing. It's easy to make mistakes on these 
important issues if you haven't done your homework, and she 
does. 

She's also one of the brightest members we've 



ever seen serve on that Board, capable of understanding these 
issues and the arguments for and against them — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Who's dumber? 
[Laughter. ] 

MR. WELLS: We'll leave that for a future day 
when maybe they'll be people we won't support. 

We have disagreed on significant issues, so we 
did go through a -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You did disagree? 

MR. WELLS: We did. We had a fairly public 
disagreement with the State Board last fall, when the Board was 
going through the process of adopting new reading textbooks and 
appointing volunteers to serve on a task force to come up with 
new math guidelines. But that's to be expected. We don't find 
many Legislators who vote the right way on every one of our 
issues either, and that doesn't surprise us that much. 

What we need more than agreement on every issue 
is someone who comes to issues with an open mind, will listen to 
all sides of the issue, have the best interests of our students 
at heart, and then try to do the right thing. And that's what 
we have found with Ms. Nicholas. 

I'd be happy to answer any questions you may 
have. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Was that the only issue that 
you had some prior disagreement about? 

MR. WELLS: That's the most significant one. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: There was no disagreement 



1 about the math curriculum? 

2 MR. WELLS: As I mentioned, it was the reading 

3 textbooks and the Math Committee that the State Board was 

4 appointing members to serve. There's still work to be done in 

5 the area of math, so there aren't any final conclusions there. 

6 We do believe that the movement — the work that 

7 the State Board is doing on math is headed in the right 

8 direction. We supported the ABC legislation that was enacted 

9 last session. We do think that balance needs to be restored, 

10 and that in both teaching language arts, reading, and in 

11 teaching of mathematics, we need some skills taught. And that 

12 while we add those skill-based instructional pieces back into 

13 the teaching, we also believe we need to not lose the higher 

14 order thinking skills that has been kind of singled out as a 

15 component of new math and whole language. 

16 So, the task in front of the State Board right 

17 now is to not lose any of that. We don't want — the pendulum 

18 in the past has, on occasion, swung too far in both directions. 

19 And what we need now is really a complete set of instructional 

20 practices that keep skills in the curriculum without losing the 

21 higher order thinking skills that we know are important, too, in 

22 the information age. 

23 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? 

24 MR. WELLS: Thank you. 

25 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Next comment. 

26 MR. MOCKLER: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 

27 Committee, I'm John Mockler, representing the Association of 

28 American Publishers. We represent the entire industry, no 



individual company. 

We stand before you to support Janet Nicholas in 
her confirmation. We have watched her for a year on the Board. 
We believe she has stood for focusing on what works for 
children. 

We, too, have not agreed with her on all issues 
as an association, and certainly many of our member companies, 
when either their advantage or disadvantage might be threatened, 
have taken issue with not only Janet Nicholas but other Board 
Members . 

But in the instant case of Janet, she has 
understood the Board's roll and the Board's constitutional 
authority well. 

Some believe that when people advise you, you 
must take their advice. The law is very clear. There are 
series of advisors appointed to the State Board of Education in 
developing a curriculum framework and adopting it, and in 
developing structural materials and adopting them. That 
includes a wide array of appointed official advisors, a wide 
array of members of a curriculum commission, and the statutes on 
the books require the public to be well versed and to have all 
materials made available, and to listen to the public. So, 
State Board is charged with listening to all of those groups 
prior to making a decision. 

Some have argued that one part of that advisory 
process ought to be object obeyed relative to others. That is 
to say, expert advisors ought to be listened to more strongly 
than the public at large, or more strongly than a curriculum 



commission. 

We believe that you call the public schools 
public schools because they belong to the public. And the State 
Board is charged under statute to have a variety of input 
positions . 

We would like our voice heard, but we would not 
be unforgiving towards any Board Member if they did not always 
accede to our advice. 

She has been thoughtful. She has learned well. 
She has been rational and made decisions based upon fact and 
science, and not on political advantage. So, we would strongly 
support her as a Board Member. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Questions? 

All right, is Mr. Lynch present? 

MR. LYNCH: I'm Robert M. Lynch, the publisher of 
the Sonoma Index Tribune in the City of Sonoma. This is my 
fifty-first year at that newspaper, and it has been in the 
family for 113 years. 

I have known Janet Nicholas for more than 30 
years, and I've been a follower and admirer of her in her 
service career while editor and publisher of the Sonoma Index 
Tribune . 

Besides, she's a long time subscriber, and we 
need all the subscribers we can keep. 

My newspaper has long been a booster of public 
education. I have been the recipient of the California Teachers 
Association John Sweat Award for Community Service through 
Advancement of Public Education, the Elementary School 



8 

Administrators Association Golden Apple Award for Contribution 
to Elementary Education, and the Sonoma County School Trustees 
Association Award for Education Contribution. 

I made the drive from Sonoma to Sacramento today 
in continuing support of public education in California/ a state 
obviously in need of all the help it can get when we read the 
lowly math rankings of recent date. 

I am here to voice my support for the 
confirmation of my friend and neighbor, representative Janet 
Nicholas, to continue serving on the State Board of Education. 
Much admired and respected in my community, she always does her 
homework, is a good listener who respects the opinions of 
others. A pro-education citizen who fights for a common sense 
balanced approach to solving California's education ills. 

Her tell-it-like-it-is style is not - — does not 
always endear her to everyone, but I know that I speak for many 
in my community when I say the State of California needs more 
thinking public servants like Janet Nicholas. 

Please confirm her appointment. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

Is Professor Alder present? Do you want to wait 
until we get into the math discussion, or do you want to start 
that? 

PROFESSOR ALDER: It's up to you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't know what would be the 
more constructive way to get into that issue, because we're 
going to have to do that soon. 

PROFESSOR ALDER: Maybe I'll wait. 



1 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there opponents present? 

2 I want to take some opposition testimony and try to focus in. 

3 We can hear some more hearts and flowers commentary, but I'd 

4 rather focus in on the issues that are controversial. 

5 Any other opponents present? 

6 MS. DeARMOND: Thank you for allowing me to be 

7 here today. My name is Margaret DeArmond, and I'm currently 

8 serving at the President of the California Mathematics Council. 

9 Before I start my prepared remarks, I would like 

10 to clear up something that was said earlier by Mr. Wells. I 

11 was under the impression that ACSA did not support the SB action 

12 led by Ms. Nicholas. In an open letter to the State Board of 

13 Education, in their publication, "Ed Cal" , it states that: 

14 "On another issue at its last meeting, the Board 

15 replaced several names on the Math Framework Committee. While 

16 we do recognize that appointment powers to the Committee do 

17 reside with the Board, the lack of public notice and the 

18 swiftness with which this action was taken causes ACSA and other 

19 education community to raise our brows in suspicion. The 

20 establishment of the trusted process were not and may not be 

21 upheld by the Board." 

22 So, I think that has some conflict to what was 

23 previously stated. 

24 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, I understood him to say 

25 the principal issue that they had was the one, and there were 

26 others, but they were not worth going into today. 

27 Anyhow, you clarified record for ACSA, and I 

28 don't think anyone cares. 



10 

MS. DeARMOND: Okay, if I could continue. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Why don't you tell us what you 
think? 

MS. DeARMOND: Certainly. As I said, I'm 
currently serving as President of the California Mathematics 
Council, an organization that I'm very proud of. We've been in 
existence for 54 years, have 10,000 members, and are the 
statewide affiliate of the National Council of Teachers of 
Mathematics . 

This is the first time our organization has ever 
taken a position regarding a Board Member, but I am here today 
at the request of the Council's Executive Board to urge you to 
deny the confirmation request of Janet Nicholas to the 
California State Board of Education. 

Ms. Nicholas has not acted in good faith in 
matters related to mathematics education policy, and to the 
rules and procedures guiding the ethical behavior of a State 
Board Member. 

Contrary to portrayals in the media, the current 
debate about mathematics is not about — over so-called new-new 
math versus old-old math, or Republican versus Democrat. It's 
about what's best for our children. 

I am a classroom teacher. I've been teaching 
mathematics to high school students for 27 years. I can tell 
you very frankly that my students come first. I want them to 
succeed in mathematics. I've taught mathematics courses based 
on the guidelines of the 1992 Mathematics Framework, and my 
students' achievement is improving. 



11 

Unfortunately, Ms. Nicholas has exhibited 
mistrust in the value of my expertise and that of other teachers 
who do not share her viewpoint. 

Shortly after I began serving on the Board, 
Ms. Nicholas and I were part of a group which came together last 
summer to work on the Mathematics Program Advisory. A State 
Board of Education Member, in my opinion, should be a person who 
is capable of listening to both sides of an issue. However, I* 
experienced first-hand that Ms. Nicholas does not demonstrate 
this diplomatic skill. 

The individuals she brought with her, who have 
never taught in public schools, lectured to the group of 
educators on the best way to teach mathematics. My colleagues 
and I soon realized there was no room for real discussion of 
issues relating to the Mathematics Program Advisory outside of 
this lecture. 

After the Program Advisory meetings, I sent a 
letter expressing my disappointment in the way the meetings were 
conducted. I received a call from Ms. Nicholas. She apologized 
to me, but only two months later, her devisive strategies were 
replicated in the Mathematics Framework Committee's selection. 

Ms. Nicholas decided that the recommendations of 
the Curriculum Commission were inadequate. She abruptly 
replaced the Framework Committee with 14 selections of her own. 
She took action with no prior notice to the Curriculum 
Commission of her intention to undertake such sweeping revision. 

The fact is, Ms. Nicholas has placed ideology 
first and the merits of sound educational practice second. In 



12 

all of her public statements/ of which there have been many, 
Ms. Nicholas asserts that there is a plot among the educational 
establishment to put the children of California at risk with new 
approaches to mathematics education. This is simply not true. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Where is the evidence of that 
assertion? 

MS. DeARMOND: Public statements? I brought some 
public statement articles that I would pass out that are back 
there, if you'd like. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. It's a serious worry 
that ideological considerations are superior to practical 
student achievement. To the extent that there's evidence of it, 
rather than just the assertion, I'd be interested in seeing it. 

MS. DeARMOND: Right. I'll get that in a 
moment . 

At the following public Board meeting, I 
presented petitions signed by 3,000 people, including parents 
and community members, protesting the State Board's action which 
was orchestrated by Ms. Nicholas. I can't speak for everyone 
who signed, but I know that I was alarmed by the actions, 
especially since it's under the guidelines of the Framework that 
my students have made such notable progress. 

Surely there's something out of balance here when 
Ms. Nicholas claims she is only looking for balance by replacing 
members of the committee with individuals critical of the 1992 
Mathematics Framework. 

I'm not here to argue that the Framework is 
beyond revision, but it is best to examine the educational 



13 

1 issues regarding the Framework without imposing prejudice and 

2 political agendas, as Ms. Nicholas has done. During the 

3 revision process, our students' welfare should be of the highest 

4 priority. Classroom teachers want to be able to support the 

5 Framework and move forward so that we can serve our students in 

6 the best way possible. 

7 | In summary, by discrediting and discounting 

8 teachers, educators, parents, and community members, by 

9 subverting the rules to favor her own political agenda, 

10 Ms. Nicholas has not demonstrated the kind of objective, 

11 inclusive leadership that should characterize a member of the 

12 State Board of Education. Rather than creating unity of 

13 j purpose, she has fostered tension and division, and all the 

14 gravity of the consequences for educating all of California's 

15 children have brought me here today to respectfully request that 

16 | you deny her confirmation. 

17 Thank you. 

18 SENATOR LEWIS: In your testimony, on several 

19 occasions you mentioned her ideology and her political agenda. 

20 \ You made reference to that. 

21 Would you tell me what that is? 

22 MS. DeARMOND: Yes, I think we're talking about a 

23 different way of teaching mathematics based on the 1992 

24 Framework. 

25 There are many instructional strategies called 

26 for that were different than what maybe most of us had back in 

27 high school or elementary school. We're talking really about 

28 the basic skills movement versus ways to teach children using 



14 

new instructional strategies. 

I don't know how much detail you want me to go 
into in the debate over the 1992 Framework. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's what you referred to as 
ideological . 

MS. DeARMOND: Yes. 

SENATOR LEWIS: I was just concerned about your 
use of certain buzz words that seems to go beyond just a dispute 
over what might be the proper techniques for teaching a 
particular course, such as mathematics. It seems to me you were 
loading up the verbiage a little bit. 

I was hoping that you might be able to shed some 
kind of — 

MS. DeARMOND: I think we have very, very 
different ideas in this country about mathematics education and 
what it should be. Very, very different ideas, and we're in 
conflict there, as came out at the Mathematics Program Advisory 
meetings. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Well, you're before a political 
committee. When you start using terms such as ideology and 
political agenda, we probably are taking them in a different 
course than maybe what you meant them. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Brulte. 

SENATOR BRULTE: What's the name of your 
organization? 

MS. DeARMOND: California Mathematics Council. 

I brought a copy of the statement, plus a little 
hand-out about the organization in case you wanted to see. 



15 

SENATOR BRULTE: And you've never been before 
this Legislature to testify on behalf or in opposition of anyone 
before? 

MS. DeARMOND: No, not in front of — no, believe 
me. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Given the fact that we're so low 
in math, I guess it would beg the question why you haven't been 
here for the last 25 years opposing people who brought us to 
this place in the first place. 

MS. DeARMOND: So low in math in achievement 
scores are we talking about? 

SENATOR BRULTE: Sure. 

MS. DeARMOND: You know, our organization, which 
is total 100 percent volunteer teachers, have never been pushed, 
have never been this upset about processes that have happened 
before. 

Have we been upset about low achievement scores 
as an organization? Absolutely, and we're teachers back in the 
classroom, working hard to improve that, and doing things that a 
professional organization does, like put on three statewide 
conferences, putting out tons of material for teachers to use in 
their classrooms. That's what we've always thought our role 
has been. 

But, because of the things that have happened in 
the last year, our Executive Board has felt strongly that we 
have to take stances that we think are quite political, that, 
quite honestly, we're uncomfortable doing. We haven't done 
these things before. 



16 

SENATOR BRULTE: What's a volunteer teacher? You 
said you're made up of volunteer teachers. What does that mean? 

MS. DeARMOND: We are all teacher volunteers 
working in our organization. I teach five math classes a day at 
a high school. All of the work that I do with the Math Council/ 
our publications, everyone who puts on a conference — and we 
had over 9, 000 teachers attending our last three statewide 
conferences this fall — every ounce of packets, letters, is 
done by volunteers. 

SENATOR BRULTE: But you're all teachers who are 
paid by public money. You just happen to be a member of a 
voluntary organization. 

MS. DeARMOND: Like all subject area professional 
organizations are. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Sure, like State Senators that 
are in committees like this. Just curious. Thanks. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: In other words, they are, at 
least in theory, people that know something about the topic. 

MS. DeARMOND: We think we do. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: This is not in reference to the 
witness. This is something I want Ms. Nicholas to help me 
with. 

I'm not one who frequents State Board meetings, 
so I don't know your structure. And I keep hearing people 
mention framework, committees, and other things, and the program 
advisory meetings, curriculum commissions. 

Explain to me how this works. Perhaps first you 



17 

can address what she talked about, the Math Framework 
Commission. Where does that fall in the structure? What do 
they do? How many members are on it? 

I don't know, does everyone here know exactly 
what these commissions do? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Only read the materials. 

SENATOR HUGHES: But even reading it, I don't 
understand it. 

MS. NICHOLAS: I have to tell you, I share — 
when I first got on the Board, I absolutely shared your 
confusion with where they all fit together. I'll try and be 
relatively succinct. 

The frameworks are documents that the Board 
ultimately adopts, and they're the basis for what publishers and 
educators throughout the state look at. 

Our legal constitutional responsibility is to 
approve textbooks. The way in which we do that refers back to 
the framework and criteria adopted. 

In terms of commission, the Board has a number of 
commissions that are advisory to it. The Curriculum Commission 
is, I believe, the one that does — when I say the most work, I 
don't mean to — 

SENATOR HUGHES: That's the overall commission, 
and then there are individual framework committees? 

MS. NICHOLAS: By subject. 

SENATOR HUGHES: By subject area, and those 
committees consist of how many people, and how are they chosen, 
and by whom? 



18 

MS. NICHOLAS: They consist of ultimately 
whatever number of persons the Board chooses. There is no 
statutory requirement. The limitation is budgetary, typically. 

The process is, the Curriculum Commission 
recommends to the -- solicits applications, reviews those 
applications, and then makes a recommendation to the Board to 
appoint a number of persons to a particular subject matter 
committee. The Board -- 

SENATOR HUGHES: And that is agreed by the 
majority of the Board Members as to the number of people and who 
is accepted to serve on a commission? 

MS. NICHOLAS: Yes, Senator. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Yes, that's what I'm trying to 
establish. 

Since we've been talking about the Math Framework 
Commission, how many persons are on that commission? And 
they're chosen by the majority. How many people were on that 
commission? 

MS. NICHOLAS: Initially, in the comments that I 
think you've just heard, that was a 19-member committee that was 
established. Since that particular time, which was in November, 
as of today, just to be accurate, there are 21 members to that 
committee . 

SENATOR HUGHES: At the time in this past 
November, you were already on the Board? 

MS. NICHOLAS: Yes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Has that changed? Has the 
make-up of that commission changed since you've been a Member of 



19 

the Board? 

MS. NICHOLAS: I think I have to just go back one 
step and say that these framework committees are very 
short-lived committees. So, when I was first appointed to the 
Board, there was no Mathematics Framework Committee. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But there were 15 appointed, 
and you removed 10? 

MS. NICHOLAS: There were 15 recommended to be 
appointed. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: By the Curriculum Commission. 
You removed 10 of the 15, 5 stayed. Subsequently, after those 
10 went on, it was again expanded and you have the current 
number. 

MS. NICHOLAS: Right. 

SENATOR HUGHES: And you replaced some of them. 
You added some others to the 10 who were on? 

MS. NICHOLAS: Yes. I don't know how much 
detail — 

SENATOR HUGHES: The reason I'm asking these 
questions — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There were 15. She took 10 of 
the 15 off the recommended list and added an additional 10. 

MS. NICHOLAS: Yes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: The reason I'm asking is because 
one of the letters, the negative letters that I received, talked 
about the addition and subtraction of members. That's the 
reason I'm going into this. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's new-new math. It's 



20 

complicated math. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR HUGHES: I'm glad you brought that up 
because that's in next question I was going to ask. 

Define for me, I knew what new math of the '60s 
was. Tell me what new-new math is. 

MS. NICHOLAS: Is that addressed to me? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Yes, anybody who can answer it. 
You and the lady sitting next to you, either one of you. You 
have to educate us. 

MS. NICHOLAS: I just have to say, stepping back 
a moment, one of the maybe difficulties I've found working in 
the educational community is that many times people of good will 
seem to be talking past each other rather than with each other. 
So, I try not to use terms like new-new math, or old-old math, 
or drill-and-kill versus don' t-drill-and-kill, because I don't 
think it's useful for the public debate. 

I think the discussion that was brought forward, 
which I respect, and I think needs, perhaps not in this room, 
but needs to have a full public airing in other rooms, is that 
people are very committed to particular views about how math 
should be taught. I can understand that and respect it. I 
think that is an important part of our public process. 

But I'm afraid I would do a disservice to utilize 
that particular terminology. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Why did you remove these ten? 

MS. NICHOLAS: May I take one second and 
definitely answer your question, but just pass around to the 



21 

Committee, if I might. 

Senator, what I put before you was, hopefully, 
with all these commissions and committees, put it to paper to 
try and make some sense. 

When I approached the Mathematics Committee 
formation, the Board's responsibility to appoint, I have to tell 
you I did not approach that in a vacuum. I don't have an 
educational background. It's not my field of study nor my field 
of employment, so I had to kind of run fast to get up to speed. 

And I need to tell you the background in which I 
function. It's highlighted in the papers I've just handed to 
you, which I won't read, I promise you. 

There's some tabs there to tell you that as I 
approached math, I was well aware, as I think most people in 
California were, that we had some significant problems emerging 
and existing in the students' study of mathematics. I was aware 
that what's typically referred to as the '92 Framework, which is 
used to evaluate textbooks and institutional material, told 
publishers to decrease their attention to things like 
memorization of algorithms. It told them ordering of numbers 
and writing of numbers was something that should be decreased in 
importance, and written practice was a decrease. 

I was aware of the NAEP scores, National 
Educational Progress scores, in '93, which showed we had major 
problems; 54 percent of our fourth graders had not reached the 
basic level of mathematic competency for fourth graders. Over 
half of CSU entering freshmen couldn't pass their math test at 
entrance. 



22 

The Board, in its previous adoption of 
mathematics textbooks, had to add three books which weren't 
recommended by its own Curriculum Commission because there was 
an outcry that there were no basic skills in those materials 
brought forward. And between the period of roughly '94 and 
1997, parents throughout the state were becoming increasingly 
alarmed. 

I've given you some tabs just to highlight those 
kinds of things. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You have a column from Dan 
Walters as evidence in your support. 

MS. NICHOLAS: Xeroxed illegally, I 
apologize. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Dan, if you want to testify 
later, we'll call you forward. 

[Laughter. ] 

MS. NICHOLAS: Just prior to my — and I'm 
skipping around — but just prior to my joining the Board, the 
Board President, Yvonne Larsen, and our Superintendent, Delaine 
Eastin, issued a joint letter to every school district in this 
state, acknowledging that there were problems with existing 
mathematical frameworks and stressing the need for a complete 
math curricula. And they were quite specific in mentioning your 
ABC bills, the Superintendent's Mathematics Task Force Report, 
and encouraged districts to give this their highest priority and 
immediate attention. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Pardon me, Ms. Nicholas. I 
notice you have Debra Saunders' commentary, and other such 



23 

people, who are, by the way, highly ideological, which gives me 
some reason to worry a little about what you think is credible 
evidence in support of your confirmation, but you don't have 
copies, for example, of the ABC bills. 

Do you happen to have those with you? 

MS. NICHOLAS: I don't have them with me, but I 
can get them in my car, actually. I have a briefcase there. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't know if there's 
someone present that would be able. 

One of the claims, at least, is that the ABC 
bills were the premise for the Board's activities. I think it 
might be constructive to have us review the legislation that we 
adopted. I would think that would be relevant to our purposes. 
It looks like maybe someone is going to help get us those. 

Go ahead. 

MS. NICHOLAS: Thank you. 

To your specific question, that was in fact the 
background at the time that I joined the Board. At our first 
Board meeting, my first Board meeting, the Board revised the 
criteria by which mathematics books are approved, and we added 
basic skills, conceptual understanding, and problem solving. 

I'll try not to get into too much detail. I 
realize this is not a hearing about mathematics. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It winds up being to some 
extent. One of our problems is, we don't have, I don't think, 
any relevant expertise. I think we can kind of hopefully listen 
to the arguments and assess credibility, and balance, 
competence. But with the exception of Senator Karnette, who at 



24 

least was once a math teacher -- 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Just last October. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — but we need to understand 
it, I think, at least to get the idea that Ms. DeArmond as well 
as yourself -- 

MS. NICHOLAS: In terms of moving forward/ 
hopefully, rapidly by me, in terms of looking at that Framework 
Committee, my compelling question was, fundamentally, how did 
the problems that seem to exist with lots of red flags all over 
in mathematics come about when so many truly fine and dedicated 
people were working so hard for the good of the children? 

And asking myself that question, I had to say 
that probably, at least my conclusion was, that somewhere along 
the line at various points in the process, different parties 
assumed someone else was looking after the situation or the 
show, so to speak. So, I kind of woke up and said, you know, if 
I'm to take this responsibility seriously, I'd better not make 
those same kinds of assumptions, because I sure don't want to do 
any harm to California kids. 

At that point, I looked at — asked a number of 
questions, and I won't integrate them into the record, that are 
documented here by date. Asked numbers of questions at Board 
meetings, phone calls with California Department of Education 
staff. I had been appointed by a board to work with the 
Superintendent and her staff to develop something called a Math 
Advisory, which we had done. 

The Board, in public session, established its 
guiding priorities in mathematics at that time, which were 



25 

really three-fold, if you will. Number one, certainly very 
respectfull and cognizant of the legislation that had passed 
that was typically are called the ABC bills. 

Number two, the Superintendent's Mathematics Task 
Force published a report which was very clear, very well 
written, called, "Success for All." The Superintendent's Task 
Force made a series of recommendations, and then the Board 
unanimously adopted, as did the — well, I guess I shouldn't say 
the Superintendent adopted — but the Superintendent concurred, 
and the California Teacher Credential Commission all concurred, 
spoke with one voice and published a mathematics advisory to 
every school district in the state. 

I used those criteria contained in those 
documents and said, does this committee reflect those 
recommendations? And the conclusion I had to draw was that 
there were many wonderful people, fine people recommended for 
appointment, but it was not reflective of those critical points. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How do you know? How could 
you tell? The ten that you thought created the wrong kind of 
composition, what was the evidence of their bias or tilt? 

MS. NICHOLAS: I have to back-step one second and 
tell you, in establishing those committees, the Title V 
regulations, which I learned about fairly recently just before 
that, require balance within a committee in terms of geography, 
of types of school districts, various other factors. So, it 
really becomes a matrix problem. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Tell me about it. 

MS. NICHOLAS: I can see you understand fully, 



26 

Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But you mean those changes 
were necessitated by those kinds of considerations? 

MS. NICHOLAS: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Not by ones dealing with the 
subject matter so much as geography and other such matters? 

MS. NICHOLAS: My original thought was to add 
on. There were certain deficiencies which were real glaring, 
not in the people, but in the recommendation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What were they? 

MS. NICHOLAS: There was no locally elected 
school board member represented in this group. I think we all 
recognize, if we want to institute change within schools, we 
need school leadership. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: As a former school board 
member, I appreciate that. 

MS. NICHOLAS: Good. 

Also, there were parents' groups, community 
organizations with expertise in mathematics; none of them were 
represented. So, those were deficiencies. 

Initially, I thought it would be a real easy 
process; I'd just look through, add on. 

What I did when I added on was make the teachers 
a minority of the total group, which would have been in 
violation of regulation. So then, I realized I had to read all 
94 applications, try and do what you apparently do quite easily, 
in making everything balance. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, it's not easy. It's hard. 



27 

Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Ms. DeArmond, the California 
Mathematics Council has been in existence for 54 years? 

MS. DeARMOND: That's right. 

SENATOR AYALA: Put you back to 1943, in the 
middle of World War II. 

MS. DeARMOND: Even before I was born. 

SENATOR AYALA: It seems to me that we've been 
going down hill since then in terms of the total curriculum in 
our schools. We've improved some, of course, not a total 
loss. 

Now, this other organization, Mathematics 
Framework Committee has been in existence six years, since 1991; 
is that correct? Your organization, the Framework, 1991? 

MS. NICHOLAS: The last Framework was adopted by 
the State Board in November of 1991, yes, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: I read some of the publications. 
We all know now that our fourth graders scored the fourth worst 
in the United States in mathematics. And California is down at 
the lower one-third for 8th graders in math. 

We must be doing something wrong. 

MS. DeARMOND: I agree. May I comment? 

SENATOR AYALA: Aren't these people trying to 
help out? You know, we tried that long enough. It seems to me 
that we're drowning in this curriculum, that these people are 
throwing you a life-saver, trying to bail you out, and you're 
resisting that. 

You had it 54 years, and you haven't done all 



28 

that well, have you? 

MS. DeARMOND: If I could clarify, our 
organization has existed 54 years. We have 20,000 members. 
There's 120,000 teachers of mathematics in California. They 
don't all choose to pay the fee to join our organization, so I 
don't think we're solely responsible for test scores. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'm not blaming your 
organization, but you've had an opportunity for the last 50-some 
years, and obviously, you haven't made much of an inroad because 
you're losing ground. In fact, I want to read here where it 
says, again, fourth graders, the worst score in the U.S. in 
1992, and that we're really, nationwide it's getting worse. 

So, it seems to me that we have to the something 
to change the existing current, and it seems like you're 
resisting that. 

MS. DeARMOND: Could I address that, because I 
think it's such a crucial — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Why don't you talk about what 
you would think are the causes for the decline, and things 
happening to address those. 

MS. DeARMOND: Would it be possible to say 
something about the decline first. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. 

MS. DeARMOND: The NAEP scores, National 
Assessment of Educational Progress, have been given for a long 
time. There's a substudy that wasn't reported recently, 
although the data has been released, which is called the NAEP 
Trends Assessment, where they've taken basic skills out of the 



29 

NAEP test, because the NAEP test is more than basic skills. It 
also has critical thinking questions on it. But they took the 
basic skills questions, and for over two decades, have looked at 
how students in the United States have scored on those. 

And the reality is, on that data, that the scores 
in the basic skills have gone up, not a lot, not enough. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Gone up where? In California 
or nationally? 

MS. DeARMOND: It's national, so that's a 
national piece of data. 

Now, the California data, the comparison I think 
you're referring to that came out recently, showed that we're 
not scoring as well compared to other states, true. But it did 
not show decreases in the basic skills scores significantly. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You mean the others increased 
more? 

MS. DeARMOND: The others increased more, and 
some of the analysis of that, it said the states where the 
scores have increased more, are states that have standards, have 
a statewide focus. And I'm so proud that California's looking 
at standards now also. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Is this something we should be 
happy about, that we're not declining quicker? 

MS. DeARMOND: No, no. Please believe me. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We're not increasing faster. 

MS. DeARMOND: Yes, but what I think the point is 
about not declining, if math reforms, if the things that tend to 
get blamed for scores going down were really in place, wouldn't 



30 

we think those scores would have plummeted instead of just sort 
of stayed the same or made slight increases? Maybe it's what 
we've been doing in the past that we haven't changed enough is 
the reason our scores haven't gone up. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Is that an argument in favor or 
against the confirmation of Ms. Nicholas? It seems to me you're 
here arguing that we're changing something, and there's 
something fundamentally wrong with that. 

MS. DeARMOND: No, I think I'm trying to clarify 
that. 

First of all, I was going to just try to clarify 
about the test scores and that interpretation. If I could just 
finish that. 

The TIMS Study, Third International Math Science 
Study that's come out recently has been very clear to show that 
nationally, and California's part of that, that math reform has 
not substantially happened. It's not in place. It's not 
systemic. It hasn't happened enough. 

It shows that teachers know about it, but they 
haven't done anything about it systematically. Whereas, Japan 
has instituted more of the reforms called for by National 
Council of Teachers of Mathematics than the United States has. 

I think we need to take long, hard look at that 
study and what it says. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You wouldn't know it by 
spending any time there. It's an ant hill. 

SENATOR BRULTE: I can interpret that, if you'd 
like. 



31 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: They're pretty good at 
memorization, not critical thinking. 

MS. DeARMOND: In Japan. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. 

MS. DeARMOND: The TIMS Study really addresses 
that in a different way, and it's not just a study of 
achievement scores, but what the curriculum, the frameworks, and 
the textbooks, and video tapes of what's happening in 
classrooms. I was very surprised by the outcome of that study. 
I had a different impression myself. 

Then considering speaking about Ms. Nicholas, I 
can't speak for the entire Math Council. I want to speak for a 
lot of people who have called me, and my personal view also, 
about what's happened in this Framework Committee selection. 

We feel strongly that the ten people who were 
removed were good people. That the 14 people that were added, 
many of them have openly spoken against math reform in public 
hearings . 

SENATOR BRULTE: Is that a disqualification? 

MS. DeARMOND: No, as long as we have a lot of 
balance, it's not a disqualification. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is the 10-11 vote a sign for 
selecting the chair, a sign that it's balanced? 

I don't know who were the 10 and who were the 
11, but it suggests something was happening there that's a 
pretty close call. 

MS. DeARMOND: Yeah, I would say that it shows 
that maybe we've got two sides operating here: 10 who want one 



32 

and 11 who want another. 

I know we have some people with definite division 
on how they view things on this Framework Committee. I've had 
phone calls about what's happened at the first two meetings that 
they've had. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And what have you been told? 

MS. DeARMOND: I've been told that people are 
lined up about how they feel about math reform, for or against* - 

My point, back to the test scores, though, in 
eliminating — in blaming mathematics reform for test scores, I 
think, is totally unjust since it's not in place. 

I think what we have to look at is past practice, 
what's been happening for decades in California's education 
system. We've never really reformed anything. Most of our 
schools are teaching the way that we have in the past. 

There are certainly new textbooks out there that 
have hit schools in the last year or so, but that's not enough 
time to do an evaluation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What was fashionable in the 
'50s and '60s? 

MS. DeARMOND: What was fashionable? I think I 
could describe probably — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Was that mostly a 
computational emphasis when I was doing it? 

MS. DeARMOND: Yes, but I think the modes of 
instruction were also what was there. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I had the gym teacher that had 
a math class. 



33 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And he had very little 
interest in math, and absolutely no capacity to inspire students 
into finding out what I had to find later in life, that this is 
an incredible almost art form in math. And for purposes of 
people who are potentially captured by cognitive skills that are 
very challenging and a system that's beautiful, it's 
extraordinary. 

MS. DeARMOND: Yes, I'm in love with it myself. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I never heard that. I heard 
memorize some Euclidean axiom, or whatever, that was like boring 
and turned us all off. 

What's the old and what's the new? 

MS. DeARMOND: It's still happening today. In 
fact, you might be familiar with the CTC legislation that is 
being promoted in looking at ways to get more teachers into the 
high schools everywhere, teachers of math backgrounds. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That have math competency? 

MS. DeARMOND: Yes. 

So, what you referred to about who's teaching 
math is still a great concern. Many people are not math majors, 
especially in high schools. 

Secondly, I think if you walked into classes, and 
it's verified by the video tapes and the TIMS Study, that the 
majority of the classes today are still: take out your book; 
here are the answers; any questions; let's go over the next 
section; here's the rules; let's practice 1 to 39 odd; you don't 
get it, you get to do the evens. It's still . solely direct 



34 

instruction. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: As a general matter, teachers 
teach the way they were taught, and parents parent the way they 
were parented. 

MS. DeARMOND: Absolutely, and it takes a 
tremendous amount of professional development and change in the 
colleges' pre-service programs to get things to be done 
differently in the right way, not — we have a lot of new 
materials out there. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're saying we never did 
change, basically. 

MS. DeARMOND: I'm saying that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Ayala, did you want to 
follow-up on that? 

SENATOR AYALA: I just want to close the 
discussion that I started. 

You have been in existence for some 54 years, 
during World War II, as I mentioned, and all the time that those 
skills have been deteriorating for our students statewide and 
nationwide, one of the lowest grades in the country. 

This other organization is six years old. 
They're trying to change what you have been doing for 54 years, 
and you are resisting that. 

MS. DeARMOND: The other organization, I don't 
know — the 1992 Framework had a Framework Committee that 
started their work in 1989. It took them several years to 
produce the 1992 Framework. 

That framework boldly called for changes. It 



35 

called for changes in instructional strategy. It called for a 
beefed-up content. Not just basic skills, but that framework 
called for teaching all the strands of mathematics/ most 
importantly, probability, statistics, and mathematical 
reasoning. Our frameworks before that didn't do that. The '92 
Framework called for that. 

Now, it's taken — it's not implemented. It's 
not in place yet. We have studies that show that. 

Now we have a new Framework Committee. They've 
only met twice. So, I'm not sure what you mean by a group 
that's existed for six years. 

SENATOR AYALA: They're trying to change the 
status quo as it pertains to mathematics. You don't like that 
to happen, as if your methods have been successful. 

I'm not blaming it all on your organization. It's 
a composite of many things to get where we are today. 

But we're not doing too well nationwide. It 
seems to me we ought to be trying new ideas, new avenues, new 
innovations . 

MS. DeARMOND: I agree. 

SENATOR AYALA: It seems to me this group is 
trying to do that. 

MS. DeARMOND: No, I think that's where we 
disagree. 

I think that the 1992 Framework called for new 
ideas, certainly still called for the teaching of basic skills, 
absolutely, but called for these other things. 

Now, because of the formation of the new 



36 

Framework that's met twice now, that Framework Committee has 
many people on it who -- 

SENATOR AYALA: What year was that? 

MS. DeARMOND: The 1992 Framework. 

SENATOR AYALA: In '92. Let's see what it says 
here about 1992. It says that despite signs of national 
improvement since 1992, the math skills of California fourth 
graders have failed to keep pace. 

MS. DeARMOND: Yeah, okay. That's the NAEP 
Report, the NAEP Study. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Janet, do you ever want to get 
a word in edgewise? You're a good listener so far. 

Go ahead, Ms. DeArmond. It's the study you were 
talking about. 

It would seem to me there probably were different 
people taking the test in 1948 than in 1996. 

MS. DeARMOND: Yes. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I mean different people in 
terms of — 

SENATOR BRULTE: This is why he's the Pro Tern. 
[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I mean the demographics are 
different, the number of all public school kids is probably a 
different pool. 

MS. DeARMOND: The make-up of California. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: California is different. I 
mean, the public school system is. 



37 

It just would strike me that — I don't know — 
you haven't talked about these things. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Maybe I can bore in on it. 

First of all, Ms. Nicholas, did you unilaterally 
make these changes, or did the Board make the changes? 

The Board is empowered to make appointments. You 
didn't do this on your own? 

MS. NICHOLAS: I did not. 

SENATOR BRULTE: You just made some 
recommendations that the Board agreed with? 

MS. NICHOLAS: I made recommendations to the 
Board in a public meeting. Those recommendations were 
discussed. There was one alteration made by the Board, and then 
they were approved. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Second — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: On this point. 

If there's anything that I found objectionable so 
far, it's the process whereby you went about that. It 
disrespected a lot of people who are interested and have the 
expertise, and I think, to some extent, your Board Members and 
the Superintendent, by springing it on them in that manner 
without adequate public knowledge and public notice and 
discussion. 

I don't know if you'd care to defend that or 
explain it. 

MS. NICHOLAS: Could I make a comment. 

I recognize in retrospect that not only in terms 
of items you mentioned, but also there were a number of hurt 



38 

feelings of people who thought they -- on just a personal 
level -- who thought they were going to be appointed to a 
committee. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: True. 

MS. NICHOLAS: They apparently, unbeknownst to 
me, when they read their name on a list or phoned up the 
Department and thought, that's over, even before it had gone to 
the Board. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Probably in the past, it meant 
it was over. 

MS. NICHOLAS: I believe that there was minimum 
review by the Board in the past. 

And I, like I think most people, really had no 
intention of hurting other people's feelings, making them feel 
bad individually. 

I think that in retrospect, I clearly could have 
done it a far better way. Hindsight is always 20-20. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You mean a little more prior 
knowledge or something? 

MS. NICHOLAS: I would have done a number of 
procedural moves very, very differently. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What would those have been? 

MS. NICHOLAS: Number one, I would have called 
and made sure that the Superintendent was in attendance during 
that particular meeting. It was — she typically sits with us 
on Friday. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You didn't know she wasn't 
going to be there? 



39 

MS. NICHOLAS: I did not know. I did not know 
that this Would be a surprise to her. She and I had that 
conversation subsequently, and I think that there's a better 
understanding now. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What else? 

MS. NICHOLAS: Number two, in terms of procedural 
moves, knowing what I now know about this fairly intricate 
system, I would have been more — this may sound really quiet ' 
odd — more direct in my comments in public session, because I 
understood precisely what I was saying. They were recorded in 
minutes, but I can clearly understand how people can sit through 
a meeting and have a variety of opinions of what transpired. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We certainly understand that 
problem. 

MS. NICHOLAS: I suffered quite a bit. 

So, there are a number of procedural steps I 
would, in retrospect, have started the day I was appointed, and 
said, what are issues I need to be concerned about, and let me 
sit and visit with all players involved. That didn't happen. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I would only recommend, 
understanding that these commissions like this at the Ed. Board, 
think of it anthropologically. It's like a little village. 
It's sort of working together makes the village work, rather 
than having one — 

SENATOR BRULTE: Before Senator Lockyer wins a 
Grammy — 

[Laughter.] 

SENATOR BRULTE: I just want to ask the witness 



40 

two or three more questions. 

Does your organization blame Ms. Nicholas for the 
reading scores of school kids in California right now? Do you 
think the fact that we're low is a reflection of anything she 
has done. 

That's a yes or a no. 

MS. DeARMOND: No. 

SENATOR BRULTE: I won't even ask a further 
question . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you have anything else to 
add? There's documentation about ideological stuff in the 
things you distributed. I assume your philosophy is with 
respect to the emphasis on traditional computational 
skills? 

MS. DeARMOND: That's right, uh-huh. 

If I could, one of greatest concerns from the 
calls I received as President of the Mathematics Council was 
from primary teachers. Because changes happen, I know it's 
difficult to get balance, but when we saw the elimination of 
primary teachers from the Framework Committee, it pushed the hot 
button from teachers all over the state who were greatly 
concerned. They were very pleased with the Board's primary 
teachers' background and expertise; they were well respected. 

The Mathematical Department Chair at UC Berkeley 
Math Department was taken off. We were very pleased that he was 
put back on, as he is a very balanced person in his views and 
very respected by the mathematics community. 

I really appreciate the time to be able to give 



41 

this point of view. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there other opposition 
present? 

Professor Alder, do you want to pop in here since 
we're on the math issue? 

There are others that want to comment. I'm 
trying to use our time appropriately. We're not a local city 
council. We've got to figure out how to focus on the issues 
that are relevant. 

PROFESSOR ALDER: Mr. Chairman, I have a very 
brief statement. 

Members of the Rules Committee, my name is Henry 
Alder. I am a member of the Mathematics Department at the 
University of California at Davis, and recent National President 
of the Mathematical Association of America. 

I am here, however, as a former member of the 
California State Board of Education, to which I was appointed by 
Governor Jerry Brown. 

I've closely followed the Board's action on 
mathematics this past year, and in particular, appointments to 
the Framework Committee. When I saw the slate recommended for 
appointment to this committee, I could not believe my eyes. 
Many of the obvious constituent leadership that should be 
represented on such a committee were not represented at all. 
There was no one on that slate who was a school board member; 
there was no one from any parents organization in the state. No 
one from any mathematics department of the California State 
University system which, as you know, trains most of the 



42 

teachers this state. I could go on and on. 

With only one exception, all of the recommended 
members had one thing in common. They were involved in the 
preparation of and were strong supporters of the 1992 California 
Mathematics Framework, the very same framework which the 
committee has been asked to revise, since it had been met with 
so much concern by so many involved and interested 
constituencies. 

As a former member of the State Board of 
Education, I can say without hesitation that no State Board of 
Education worthy of its name could be expected to approve such a 
flawed set of recommendations. 

Janet Nicholas was the first person on the Board 
to recognize this so clearly and deserves the highest credit, 
not only from the Board, but from the entire state. She has 
earned our deepest gratitude for taking a tremendous amount of 
time to read all the applications, to decide to make 
recommendations to the Board on the membership of the Framework 
Committee, and then recommending a set of candidates with a 
proper balance with respect to viewpoints, backgrounds, 
expertise, geography, ethnic background, gender, and other 
criteria, at the same time, leaning over backwards to retain as 
many members of the Curriculum Commission's recommended 
candidates as possible. 

For this she also deserves the gratitude of all 
children now entering California's public schools who, as a 
result of her efforts, will have the best K-12 education 
possible. 



43 

Your Committee has the opportunity to show strong 
support for her efforts by unanimously confirming her. Not to 
confirm this exceptionally intelligent and objective, 
knowledgeable person would be nothing short of a major calamity 
for California/ and would cause a tremendous backlash. It would 
be interpreted as a political action clearly in contradiction to 
what the President of the United States, in his State of the 
Union Address last month, stated so eloquently, and I quote: 
"Because education is one of the critical security issues for 
our future, politics must stop at the classroom door, " end of 
quotation. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Professor, have you had a 
chance to see and evaluate at all a curriculum called Math Land? 

PROFESSOR ALDER: No. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

Any questions? Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I just wanted to ask one 
thing. You were talking about elementary teachers. There were 
no elementary teachers. 

Do you think it was set up correctly without 
elementary teachers? 

PROFESSOR ALDER: There are five elementary 
teachers now. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I thought originally there 
weren't, though. 

MS. NICHOLAS: There were elementary teachers 
originally. 



44 

My work was done, and I'm sure the panel isn't 
quite so interested, done from a computer printout, where 
someone had inputted for a couple of elementary teachers. 
Rather than inputting the grades they taught, they inputted the 
age of the children. So, those people were restored. 

I'm happy to go into this level of detail, but 
I'm just not sure you all want me to. 

PROFESSOR ALDER: So there are five elementary 
teachers . 

MS. NICHOLAS: Yes, there are elementary 
teachers . 

SENATOR KARNETTE: There are elementary teachers? 

MS. NICHOLAS: There were prior to the Board 
adding them. We now have more elementary teachers, which I 
think is wonderful. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Were there teacher trainers from 
the State University who help people to get their teaching 
credentials as members of this group? 

MS. NICHOLAS: Originally as it was proposed to 
the Board from the Curriculum Commission, there were not the CSU 
system professors. When the Board approved it, there were. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I want to commend you on that, 
because I heard someone talk about something that the commission 
did, Teacher Training Commission. They're not the ones that 
train the teachers. They only approve the policies. But it's 
the State University system that trains the teachers, just as 
it's the elementary and junior high school and high school 
teachers that teach the children, not the University professors, 



45 

not the chairs of the Math Departments or other places like 
that. 

So, let's get everything in perspective. And 
also, it's those parents that you put on that commission that 
are very, very important/ because they're the homework helpers 
once they get home. 

PROFESSOR ALDER: You're absolutely correct. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I have a couple questions, 
Janet. Thank you for coming by to see me. I appreciated that. 

I want to commend you on being willing to go 
through all this. I admire you. 

I'm here because I really care about students 
learning mathematics. Being a middle school math teacher, I'm 
really concerned. I know they have to be motivated. 

I have two questions. I think we can probably 
all agree that society really needs more math knowledge than it 
now has . 

And I think we can also agree, with all due 
respect, Senator Ayala, that we need more than we than we even 
had when you and I went to school. I think we really do. I 
think it's obvious that mathematics is very, very 
important . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Especially Chaos Theory. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Absolutely. That makes good 
movies. 

But the question I have is, I have two questions. 
How do you think the curriculum and teaching methods should be 
changed in order to improve mathematics, and who should change 



46 

them? I don't mean specifically/ but your philosophy of 
education, I think, will come in here. 

How should the curriculum and the teaching 
methods be changed, in a general kind of way? 

I'm a member of the California Math Council 
myself. 

MS. NICHOLAS: Thank you, Senator. I'll try and 
speak to the points. And I won't just limit it to math, if I - 
may. 

I am not a mathematician nor an educator, so I 
can't approach things from those perspectives. My background is 
really doing non-educational research. As an economist, that's 
precisely what I did, and make recommendations to businesses on 
how to invest or not invest. 

So, my bias, if there is one, is that we have to 
move an educational system from a mode of thinking — I'm not 
speaking of the children; I'm speaking of the decision makers, 
the leadership, prior to making decisions — to look at and take 
in all the best available research, analyze it, have public 
discussions, debates, absorb it, and try and reach some rational 
conclusions that are research based, whether it's mathematics, 
or chemistry, or some other subject matter that may be. That 
would be my methodological approach. 

The second thing about method of teaching, and 
how do you change it. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I asked by whom. I wouldn't 
expect you to know all that. 

MS. NICHOLAS: Good. 



47 

By whom, it's an awkward system. My take on it 
now is that the leadership at a state level — the Board, the 
Superintendent — locally elected school board, locally elected 
administrators, and teachers, really have a leadership role in 
making sure not that we become, as someone once said to me, the 
Math Police, and go around and check how mathematics is the 
taught in various classrooms, but the teachers are really tired, 
at least the ones who have spoken to me, of pendulum swings, of 
having an amorphous thought come from — they usually blame it 
on Sacramento. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is this a new pendulum swing 
that you're sponsoring? 

MS. NICHOLAS: Exactly not. 

What I think that most people are trying to do is 
say, let's give teachers and local districts the information 
that they can look at, use, and absorb, and analyze their own 
district's situation, and find out what works best for the kids. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Based on some standards? Are 
you saying we should have standards? 

MS. NICHOLAS: Personally, I strongly believe in 
standards. They're critical to accountability. 

But I'm kind of jumping all over the place. I 
apologize to all of you. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Then I guess my other 
question, when we talked, you said you had certain goals as 
Member of the Board of Education. 

And as an aside, I read an article in the 
Chronicle, San Francisco Chronicle, that said reading had a lot 



48 

to do with the low scores, which I think goes along with all the 
discussion we heard here. If we improve reading, I bet you 
math scores go up. 

But the goals, can you outline kind of your 
philosophy, maybe that's what you've been doing, behind meeting 
the goals? I'd like to know in general what your goals are, 
and how you see we should go about meeting them. 

If you feel like you've told me, maybe you can 
simplify it a little. 

MS. NICHOLAS: I'll try my best, Senator. 

I think my goals are precisely what all of your 
goals are, that every single child in this state goes as far as 
he can or she can academically, and that we provide every kid 
with the tools that they'll need today, tomorrow, and the next 
day. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: But they have to have 
standards, right? I mean, we'll have to know somehow whether 
they've met them. 

MS. NICHOLAS: Absolutely, but you asked, I 
thought, about the goals. Those would be my goals. 

I come from maybe a perspective where I've met 
lots of kids. Typically you would call them — or in Sacramento 
they would be called kids at risk, or kids in juvenile 
facilities, who — because I have to chime in on your reading — 
I have never seen a population that cannot read more than that 
population. 

I have to tell you, these are non-drop outs. 
One of my dominate motivations originally, agreeing that the 



49 

State Board of Education was some place I would like to be, was 
to try and help those kids, because I'm frankly ashamed that 
they have been in school and are functionally illiterate. And I 
or anyone else, I do not believe, can help them turn around 
their lives if they can't read and don't have core basic 
skills. 

I hope that answers your question. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: So, the way you want to meet 
the goals, though, is to just encourage everybody to do the best 
they can locally as much as possible? 

MS. NICHOLAS: I'm sorry. I guess I'm not 
understanding your question. 

If you're asking if I support the state 
establishing standards of what kids should know, and when they 
should know them, if we should have a testing mechanism, an 
assessment mechanism to measure that, the answer for me, at 
least, is absolutely yes. 

All of you, I'm sure, worked very hard on the 
legislation that set that in motion. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Okay, I think that answers my 
question. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Professor. 

I note from looking at some of the news articles 
that you suggest that new math, which encouraged students to 
explore concepts but didn't emphasis correct answers, was a 
cruel joke. 

Are you properly quoted? 

MS. NICHOLAS: No. I suspect — I'm not sure 



50 

which article -- but I believe you entirely. No, that was — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Press Democrat, wrong 
newspaper . 

MS. NICHOLAS: You made me blush, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This is a conservative 
Christian women's group meeting in Santa Rosa; Debra Saunders is 
the speaker. Do you know that one? 

MS. NICHOLAS: I don't mean to imply that the 
quote was inaccurate. The context was cut out, which was the 
question I was asked: did I support making — throwing out 
answers. You know, there was no right, no wrong in terms of 
mathematics. I'm not speaking of anything other than 
mathematics . 

So, that statement, I'm sure, was accurate. 
However, there was a whole other sentence before it, which 
probably wasn't as good a sound byte for the paper. 

SENATOR BRULTE: We've never experienced anything 
like that at all, I want you to know. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It actually is the thing I try 
more than anything else to convince my colleagues of, is that we 
shouldn't just write fundamentally new laws, as is often 
suggested by some, based on slogan or anecdote. And it sounds 
like the same kind of longing for some empirical basis that 
disciplines our options. 

Looking at another article, I see that some, at 
least, believe that this debate is between those who would hope 
to make math more interesting and meaningful to students. Based 



51 

more on memorization, the other side, more memorization than on 
understanding . 

Do those descriptions assist you? 

MS. NICHOLAS: I couldn't hear what the question 
was. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is that how you would 
understand the debate? 

MS. NICHOLAS: No. Truly, it's not, I must say. 

I have to tell you, prior to being on the Board, 
I never in my life would have guessed that mathematics could be 
so debatable, so contentious. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You know what we say in 
academia: We fight so hard because the stakes are so low. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But this case, if it really 
has an impact on kids' lives, then the stakes are high, and we 
understand that. 

MS. NICHOLAS: Absolutely. 

I may not be an educator, but I am a parent. I 
do like to surround myself in, perhaps, a younger world. 

I don't know of anyone, whatever your theory of 
mathematics or not, who would want to bore young children, who 
would want to not have them inspired, to use your gym teacher 
analogy. 

I won't take your time to tell you a few of my 
vignettes from my past, but I think we all recognize that not 
only do we have to provide materials, we have to inspire the 
mind to be willing to absorb those terms. 



52 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Every person I know has a 
teacher in their life that usually made a big difference in 
their life. 

MS. NICHOLAS: Absolutely. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Almost always that is a 
teacher who could motivate people, not just teach them basic 
drills; almost always. 

So, I think that's perhaps what some are trying 
to suggest on the other side of the debate, is that there's a 
needs to excite and capture and involve students, and that 
computations won't do that alone. 

Now, we understand that computational skills are 
important to just living, as well as moving on, perhaps, to more 
higher order thinking, and that's an interesting debate. What 
did we used to call it, the Bloom's Taxonomy. 

I want to conclude maybe this particular segment 
by asking you this. You're quoted as saying you're hoping that 
we're not going to have these pendulum swings, that we're 
entering another type of era where we're not looking at 
experimentation without solid research. We're looking for 
balance. 

So, when you get the product of the Framework, 
will you insist on an empirical basis, and pilot testing, and 
trying things out, and seeing that they work before there are 
radical changes in direction? 

MS. NICHOLAS: Absolutely. I hope you'd remove 
me if I didn't. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I can't. This is it. This is 



53 

our only shot at you, you see. 

The only other thing on this point I'd like to 
mention is that the ABC bill, I think many have claimed it 
provides more direction than is, in fact, the case. Like so 
many laws, they can be read in numerous different ways. 

But the only thing relevant that it says is that 
the Board should adopt programs based on the fundamental skills 
required by the subjects, including but not limited to basic 
computational skills. 

While that language is there, some would think 
that critical thinking is possible at any age. It's not just 
something you learn older. 

I'm a high school teacher, so we always used to 
fight about those that were subject-matter expert versus those 
that really understood growth and development. I don't want to 
get into the matter. 

But I don't know there's necessarily a conflict, 
other than as it's been misunderstood, over-simplified, and 
subject to public debate, and a debate that in many ways wants 
to just blame somebody or something for the decline in test 
scores; scores that Senator Ayala was expressing concern about. 

Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I wonder, Ms. Nicholas, how 
important do you think is problem solving in terms of the kind 
of test scores that we did poorly in? If you just gave simple 
multiplication, subtraction or addition problems, I think that 
our students might have done as well as some other places. 

But problem solving, how important do you think 



54 

that is, to emphasize problem solving? That's a higher order of 
thinking, and so as some of the mathematics experts zero in on a 
focus on mathematics, how much emphasis do you give to problem 
solving? 

MS. NICHOLAS: What I've look at so far, this is 
just a personal observation, it happens to be reflected in the 
what's called the Program Advisory on Mathematics, that this 
point in time, looking at current confirmed research, you really 
can't differentiate and say, are basic skills more important 
than problem solving or more important? The terminology we use 
for what you described is conceptual understanding. 

And the answer is, it's not a game where one 
votes which is most important. But those three components 
really work together to produce a solid mathematical background, 
hopefully, for all our students. So, they need to work 
together, and there is no magic formula, the percentage of each 
day that must be spent on each skill. 

SENATOR HUGHES: But isn't there also the 
realization that all of us who are in this room, each of us can 
solve a problem, a mathematical problem, in a different way? 

I usually think in groups of tens, or I combine 
numbers that I know better, and round off in tens, and adding up 
columns. And other people do it other ways. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I take my shoes off. 

SENATOR HUGHES: So, isn't that finding out where 
the student is, and not telling the student they are wrong, 
asking them to explain how they got to their conclusion, which 
is the same answer that someone across the room would come to? 



55 

The respect for individuality. 

MS. NICHOLAS: Absolutely, but I think I have to 
say, because I'm often asked the question, certainly not in a 
setting like, that it goes far beyond math. The respect for 
individuality that we're trying, I think, and hope to foster 
throughout society certainly has to be there in all those 
schools, whether it's in math class, or in some other class, or 
on the playground. 

I guess my only experience I can bring to that, 
your Chairman's comments were that in school, I can always 
remember every math teacher I ever had said: show your work, 
and even if you get an incorrect answer, you will receive some 
form of partial credit for my understanding of what it is you've 
done with this problem. And that was in the Dark Ages, and even 
then, they were recognizing. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What's wrong the Dark Ages? 
Weren't our scores up then? 

MS. NICHOLAS: I'm not touching that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me shift to a couple other 
quick issues. 

Three years ago, while you were on the Board of 
Supervisors, I think, the Voucher Initiative was on the ballot. 

Can you tell us what your view is generally about 
that topic? 

MS. NICHOLAS: I left the Board of Supervisors in 
1991. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Subsequently, then, you're a 
private citizen at this time. Do you have a view on the 



56 

initiative, generally, about voucher education? 

MS. NICHOLAS: As I recall of that, it was fairly 
publicized even though I was a private citizen that I did not 
support that initiative. 

In terms of looking at California public 
education, I really think there's a spectrum of — everyone 
wants to get to the same point. There are no evil people that 
don't care about kids and don't want to do better for them. 

Some people really focus on the structural 
side. And that's certainly their prerogative. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You mean like voucher on the 
structural side. 

MS. NICHOLAS: Voucher, structural side. I read 
an article — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Theories of competition, or 
whatever? 

MS. NICHOLAS: The competition theory, maybe we 
shouldn't have public — I mean, there are all kinds of theories 
out there. 

To me, the other side of that is what happens in 
the classroom. And when I signed on to work as hard as I could 
for California kids, I signed on to what happens in the 
classroom side. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good emphasis. Hope you'll 
stay there. 

MS. NICHOLAS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many hours do you think 
you put in a month in this activity? 



57 

MS. NICHOLAS: I don't know if you want to ask me 
that this month. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, get it in the record. 

MS. NICHOLAS: On a typical month, our Board 
meetings are three days in a month, and I probably spend the 
equivalent of a 40-hour week, not necessarily all in one block, 
in preparation or reading, and I'm constantly behind. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You mean each week? 

MS. NICHOLAS: No, excuse me, a month. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Forty hours so a month? 

MS. NICHOLAS: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: For the reading, studying, 
committees, and the full committee? 

MS. NICHOLAS: Yes, not so much in my case the 
committee. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, maybe ten hours or so a 
week if you were to spread it through. 

MS. NICHOLAS: Spread it out. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I have one more question. 

Ms. Nicholas, are you familiar with the 
demographics and the compositions of all the various areas in 
California? I'm sure you're aware of that, but from the 
southern part of the state and all the way up to urban centers? 

I mentioned reading earlier, because I firmly 
believe that reading is what the problem is, and a lot of the 
math problem is reading. It's not computation; it's reading. 
You can't reason if you can't understand the words. 

So, as a teacher, I feel like that's a very 



58 

serious problem. 

How do you see California, and the composition of 
the various classrooms? Do you understand pretty well where 
people live, and who lives there, and all those things? 

MS. NICHOLAS: I would be remiss if I told you I 
understood all of California. I mean, I understand and 
certainly have looked at the demographics of different parts of 
the state. I understand both the existing and the projections 
for our student populations, looking for the next decade, and 
the tremendous needs for facilities — maybe I'm lobbying you a 
little on this occasion — that we face in California as well as 
the challenges. 

But I really believe there are opportunities in 
those challenges. It's really glass half-full, glass 
half-empty. I think it's half full. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How much money do you want per 
kid for class size reduction? So far the choices are: 650; 
850; the Satanic one, 666, that's the Governor's budget; 750. 

Do you have a number? 

MS. NICHOLAS: I don't, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me just suggest, I know 
there are other people that would wish to comment. Look at the 
result. We're ready to vote. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I just want to ask her one last 
question. 

I met you. I didn't realize that you were a 
brand-new person on the School Board when you came, at Delaine 
Eastin's invitation, to Compton. 



59 

What did you learn from that experience that can 
help you understand your job better? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This may be the toughest 
question of the day. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Yes. What did you learn from 
that experience? 

MS. NICHOLAS: Senator, from that experience, 
which I remember vividly and will never forget for the rest of 
my life, I learned that I will fight as long and as hard as I 
can to improve conditions for California kids. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Let's go for a vote. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'd like to make a motion. 

I move that Janet Nicholas, Member of the State 
Board of Education, be confirmed. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any comment from Members? 

SENATOR BRULTE: I came in predisposed to support 
you, and not withstanding the support of a Jerry Brown 
appointee, I'm still there. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Even a stopped clock is right 



twice a day. 



Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 



60 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me just conclude by first 
congratulating you and wishing you well in your 
responsibilities. And hoping that you'll stay true to the kind 
of disciplined and empirical approach that you've indicated you 
think is the right way to make important decisions of this 
sort. 

I think we're all impressed by your competence 
and genuine commitment to improving schooling for kids in 
California, and our vote is in no way meant to be, and hope 
won't be interpreted, as disrespectful to the Math Council and 
others who have every right to aggressively involve themselves 
in these debates. I hope they'll continue to do that. 

Thank you, good luck. 

MS. NICHOLAS: Thank you very much, sir. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing was 

terminated at approximately 4:03 P.M.] 
— 00O00 — 



61 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California/ do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

tJ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 

Ql day of J ">l4>< cJ^ 1997. 



EVELYN J.. / MIZAK\ 
Shorthand Reporter 



MARCH 3, 19 97 

DORENE L. MUSILLI 

STATEMENT BEFORE CALIFORNIA SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 



MR. CHAIRMAN, SENATORS, 

THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. 

I AM DORENE MUSILLI. I CURRENTLY SERVE AS A TRUSTEE 
ON OUR LOCAL SONOMA VALLEY BOARD OF EDUCATION. FOR 
17h YEARS PRIOR, I SERVED AS A MEMBER OF THE SONOMA 
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION. 

HAVING SPENT 20 YEARS AS A SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, I 
WATCHED HELPLESSLY AS OUR STATE DESCENDED FROM AMONG 
THE TOP FIVE TO THE BOTTOM FIVE STATES AND TERRITORIES. 
I WISH TIME PERMITTED ME TO SHARE WITH YOU MY EXPERIENCES 

WE HAVE ALL SEEN THE STATE BY STATE RANKINGS. 

MY FEELINGS OF HELPLESSNESS AND FRUSTRATION WERE SOMEWHAT 

RELIEVED WHEN MRS. NICHOLAS WAS APPOINTED TO THE STATE 

BOARD OF EDUCATION. AS A LOCAL BOARD MEMBER AND SMALL 
BUSINESS OWNER WHO UNDERSTANDS WHERE AND HOW HELP IS 

NEEDED, I SEE IN JANET NICHOLAS A SENSE OF BALANCE TOWARD 

EDUCATION ISSUES. THIS BALANCE IS DESPERATELY NEEDED IN 
OUR STATE. 

YOUR COMMITTEE IS JOINED IN THE BATTLE TO BRING NECESSARY 
AND REASONABLE REVIEW TO OUR EDUCATION POLICIES IN THIS 
STATE . 



-2- 



PLEASE RECOMMEND CONFIRMATION OF MRS. NICHOLAS SO 
THAT PROCESS CAN ENJOY BALANCE. 

THANK YOU. 



DORENE L. MUSILLI 

P.O. BOX 1610 

BOYES HOT SPRINGS, CA 95416 

(707) 938-1418 




SONOMA VALLEY 
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 



DORENE MUSILLI 

TRUSTEE 



721 WEST NAPA STREET 
SONOMA, CALIFORNIA 95476 



TEL: (707) 935-6003 
FAX: (707) 935-4276 



5 rt ~J 

B) 1 ' 

V> <" Sg 

o 5' S 

* <*> $ 

» 3 



o 

3 

I ? 
l» ft 

c 



g r- 




Y"N " -"-* - 








5 Nl 












s 






■B 






?•: 




^v.. **$&!? 


- > 




^. X tL "*'~ 






$~ \2 r 


* S 




<5<, ;.-*: . 


•w 3 




P*Vw *' 


0) 












5' 




\ --„ «■» 


3 




\.- _ *i- 




>«..- V*-«5» : 



i 



o 

z 

o 



317-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.50 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 317-R when ordering. 



MAR 2 7 1997 

SAW FRANOiSGO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



HEARING 

^ SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1997 
1:52 P.M. 



Q-ia.n 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1997 
1:52 P.M. 



Reported by 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR JAMES BRULTE 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

ANNE L. BERSINGER, Chief Deputy Director 
Department of Social Services 



Ill 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 

ANNE L. BERSINGER, Chief Deputy Director 

Department of Social Services 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Governor's Proposal that Welfare Recipient 
Mothers Go to Work When Baby is 12 Weeks Old ... 3 

Ability to Include Options for Mothers 

and/ or Children with Health Problems 5 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Availability of Child Care Slots for 

Newborns 6 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Governor's Proposal on Allowable Time on 

Aid Is Half of Federal Requirement 7 

Governor's Requirement that Job Must Be 

32 Hours Per Week to Comply with Regulations . . 10 

Department's Role in Assuring Consistency 

across Counties on Child Support Enforcement . . 12 

California Versus Other States in Collecting 
Child Support Payments 13 

Changing Name and Rules of Game 14 

Ways to Educate People about TANF 15 

Out-reach to Those Interested in Opening 

and Operating Child Care Centers 16 

Working with Housing Projects on Care 

Centers 18 

Need for More Sensitivity and Flexibility 

for Single Parents 19 



IV 



Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Time Spent on Administration versus 

Policy Making 20 

Computer Problems at DMV 2 

Project Management Training 22 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Ability to Influence Director on Problems 

Raised 24 

Comments by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Appreciation for Efforts on Behalf of 
Constituents with Licensing Problems 25 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Relationship with Director, ELOISE ANDERSON ... 26 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Tenure in State Government 27 

Experience in Various Departments 28 

Motion to Confirm 29 

Committee Action 29 

Termination of Proceedings 29 

Certificate of Reporter 30 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Ms. Bersinger is next. 

Do you want to begin with any kind of comment? 

MS. BERSINGER: Yes, Senator, I have a brief 
comment, if I may. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Rules Committee, 
I'm Anne Bersinger, and I'm here to talk with you this afternoon 
about my qualifications for the position of Chief Deputy 
Director of the Department of Social Services, a position that 
I've been in since June 1st of 1996. 

My role is that of day-to-day manager of the 
Department, responsible for implementing the policies of the 
Director and the administration. I believe that my background 
makes me particularly well suited for this position, in that I 
have many years of experience in state government, working in a 
variety of departments. 

Immediately prior to my current job, I was the 
Chief Deputy Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles, a 
department that is twice the size of the Department of Social 
Services. My role there was that of chief operating officer of 
a 24-hour, 7-day a week operation. I served in that position 
from 1991 to 1996 and was the Chief of Administration there for 
the preceding four years. 

DMV is the equivalent of a large manufacturing 
operation. During my nine-year tenure, I learned the import of 
attending to problems quickly, and the need to keep a constant 
focus on the goal that you want to achieve. Failure to do so 



gives the organization the opportunity to dissipate resources in 
any number of ways. 

In addition, I have ten years of prior experience 
with the Department of Social Services between 1974 and 1984. I 
was the Deputy Director for Community Care Licensing there for 
five years. I also managed the food stamp program, the state 
supplemental payment program, and several refugee programs. 

These positions taught me the value of engaging 
in discussions with all interested parties on all issues, 
especially those where there are opposing points of view. 
While such interaction doesn't necessarily result in agreement, 
it nearly always produces a clearer understanding of the issues 
and of the viable solutions. 

I also learned the vital importance of counties 
in carrying out welfare programs in California. They are our 
front line partners and must participate in planning of any 
major change because it is they who will be taking the action to 
implement the agreed-upon change. 

This combination of program management and 
administrative experience has given me a solid base to bring 
both perspectives to bear on the myriad challenges that are 
facing the Department today. 

I went to work at the Department of Social 
Services expecting that welfare reform would not pass at the 
federal level and would continue to be pursued incrementally. 
Yet even without welfare reform, there were many major reform 
efforts under way at the Department. It was not long before I 
learned that my expectations about major reform were wrong, and 



I was involved in planning one of the largest and most 
far-reaching undertakings in state government. I admit that the 
task is daunting; however, I believe that I'm well-suited to 
manage it and other Department programs as well. I hope you 
will agree. 

Thank you for listening to my comments, and I am 
happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I appreciate your coming before 
us today, but there are some things that really trouble me about 
the onerous responsibility that we all have to see that welfare 
reform is reformed the way that the nation's leaders, and also 
the state leaders, think makes good sense. 

Congress and the President exempted the mothers 
with babies twelve months or younger from joining the work 
force. But then, the Governor has set a time period of twelve 
weeks. So, when a baby is thirteen weeks old, the mother must 
go to work or face grant cuts. 

How do you think this works? How does this make 
a lot of sense? 

There seems to be no consideration of the number 
of other children who might be in the family. I mean, this 
sounds like what the Governor really thought of, just one child 
in a family, talking about a beginning family. 

What happens if there's a two or three-year-old 
around with this other child there? Then is it feasible for 
that mother then to go to work after the twelve-week period? 

MS. BERSINGER: Senator, in the discussions to 



which I was a party to relative to that issue, certainly one of 
the fundamental issues in the entire welfare reform effort is 
the issue of should a mother have to go to work and at what 
point should she have to go to work. 

I believe the distinction between the twelve 
month exemption, which is included in the federal law, and the 
twelve-week exemption, which is included in the Governor's 
proposal, is that the twelve-week exemption more clearly 
reflects the time-frame that a working mother has to take off 
from her job, have her child, and then return to work. It was 
that consistency between the working mother — 

SENATOR HUGHES: This is assuming that a person 
has previously worked, and now they're taking maternity leave 
for the purpose of having a child. Is that what you're talking 
about? 

MS. BERSINGER: What I'm talking about here is 
that when we structure a welfare program that is temporary in 
nature, paralleling it where we can so that it reflects the same 
experience that one would have if they were working, is where a 
twelve-week exemption emanates from, that being what is provided 
for in the Family Leave Act. 

SENATOR HUGHES: But then, too, that's not 
realistic in all cases, because if the children are too close 
together in age, this presents another problem, another problem 
of child care, and assuming that the new-born is in a healthy 
condition. So, there are other factors that are not worked into 
this equation. 

So, it really, really concerns me that the time 



is so short for the mother to make a major decision about going 
back to work. 

This is assuming that the mother has a job to 
begin with. And so, you're equating it to what the present 
rules are for someone who is taking a maternity sabbatical. 

MS. BERSINGER: Yes, that is correct. 

SENATOR HUGHES: So, that's kind of unrealistic 
in a way, because people don't sort of plan their deliveries 
scientifically enough to be able to fit into the parameters of 
reality. And childbirth is not the case in which you're 
guaranteed you're going to have a healthy baby and a healthy 
mother who survives childbirth and is able to jump right back to 
work. 

How are you going to, or are you going to, try to 
make this more realistic based on the individual cases? 

MS. BERSINGER: Certainly, this proposal assumes 
that the mother is healthy and able to return to work. 

If, of course, she is disabled, or if in fact the 
child is disabled, I think those present some unique 
circumstances that aren't contemplated in the proposal itself. 

The proposal did include an option for counties 
to extend that exemption at their discretion, but the standard 
was built upon the healthy mother who had a healthy child. And 
under those circumstances, then, would be expected to begin 
participation in the other work requirements of the Governor's 
proposal upon the child reaching twelve weeks of age. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Let me tell you another gray 
area. 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Could I stay on that one for a 
moment? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You've had personal experience 
that was extensive in Community Care Licensing. 

MS. BERSINGER: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What do you think, separate 
from whether the mother is ready or the kid is healthy and ready 
for child care, what are your notions about the availability of 
child care slots for thirteen-week-old infants? 

MS. BERSINGER: As I know you are aware, Senator, 
infant care is not only the most expensive type of care that's 
available, it is the one that is probably the least universally 
available . 

What we're unable to determine because most 
counts of available infant child care have to do with day care 
centers that take care of infants, we're really not able to 
project, of the number of slots in family daycare, how many of 
those are available for infant care. 

But I don't think there's any question that 
infant care is likely to be an area of child care shortage. 

Now, the flip side of the coin is that if you 
look at the experience of childcare for the welfare recipient 
population, they have more frequently than not, that is, in the 
majority of the cases, opted for exempt types of care, of 
course, for which we have no information about, as opposed to 
the licensed care of either family day care or day care 
centers. 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Maybe a relative or a 
neighbor? 

MS. BERSINGER: Yes, a grandmother, and those 
kinds of things. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Hughes, thank you. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Congress and the President have 
said that a person has 24 months of aid and then the person has 
to find a job, and Governor says after twelve months on aid, 
then you're off. That's one year. 

Why are we being so tough and saying you can't 
stay until your child is two? Do we have a lot of jobs 
available to offer people? Are these people who are going to go 
back to work? Do they have any skills to match the jobs that 
are available? 

If you're a secretary or a typist, and you have 
proficiency, perhaps there might be some jobs in the area, and 
perhaps there might not be. If you did a certain kind of work, 
say, in my community where you worked for a plant, and that 
plant has left, then you'll have to retool to get some 
additional kinds of skills. 

Why is that time cut short, exactly in half? Why 
are we going to be tougher than the federal government, and we 
have more job loss than they have in a lot of other places in 
the nation? 

MS. BERSINGER: Let me try to address the two 
parts to that question. 

First of all, as it relates to the one-year time 
limit as opposed to the federal two-year time limit. 



8 

The thinking in the Governor's proposal is that, 
first of all, we're talking about a time limit of the welfare 
program in its entirety. We are talking about a five-year 
lifetime limit. The Governor's proposal breaks that into 
one-year increments, twelve cumulative months out of any 24 
consecutive months. 

And the thought is that if we put incentives in 
place for people to go back to work more quickly, they are less 
likely to use up the full amount of their lifetime limit. 

Now, we have structured in the proposal the limit 
such that, at the conclusion of the twelve months, the children 
in that family unit continue on aid even though the adult would 
not . 

When you look at the jobs that are available, 
California's economy is very robust, and it is growing much more 
quickly than many economies across the state — or across the 
nation. Many of those new jobs that are created are 
entry-level jobs, and we believe that a large proportion of the 
welfare recipient population will be seeking those kinds of 
entry-level jobs. 

So, I think that the design is an incentive to go 
back to work quickly so that you don't use up your five-year 
lifetime limit in one spell of unemployment. 

SENATOR HUGHES: But then, on the other hand, 
doesn't a person have the right, or should they not be 
encouraged, to try to move up the occupation ladder, to better 
their skills so that they can be more marketable in terms of 
bringing home a bigger paycheck to pay the bills of the growing 



family? 

Now this person has one more person to feed than 
they had prior to their going out on maternity leave. Should 
they go back to the widget factory or should they upgrade 
themselves to be available for the job that they have in their 
community? I mean taking advantage of community college or 
other training. 

MS. BERSINGER: I think the experience that most 
people have is that even with training, you typically start out 
at the bottom and you work your way up the ladder. 

I think the Governor's proposal is premised on 
the fact that any job is acceptable, honorable employment, and 
is preferable to welfare. And that starting out, one would 
expect that, as most of us do, you start at the bottom and then 
work your way up through the ranks, and you do that while you're 
employed. 

SENATOR HUGHES: But if you get a job at 
McDonald's, it might be ten or fifteen years before you ever 
become even an assistant manager. 

Are you to stay on that track forever if you go 
back so quickly? Is it going to be a realistic goal that this 
person can be even more productive than they are now? 

This person might have done that when they were 
in high school, or something like that. Is it going to be dead 
end? 

MS. BERSINGER: I don't think we have any 
information about whether it is going to be dead end, any 
particular job is going to be dead end. 



10 

I think that the opportunities available to the 
person who is taking an entry-level job to take additional 
training at night, if that's what fits into their longer range 
career goals, is the same as that which is available to anyone 
that is working: to go school at night, to take additional 
courses better themselves, and use that as the platform for 
moving up in their career. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Another area that confuses me is 
why California, who has the largest population in the nation, is 
going to be tougher than anywhere else? The President and 
Congress maintain the job had to be 20 hours a week to comply 
with the regulations, and our Governor has now said that the job 
has to be 32 hours a week. 

Where did the 32 hours come from? And does it 
make it possible for them to provide more services to the family 
and be employed? Are they going to make that much more money in 
that additional 12 hours a week? 

What was the Governor thinking, and who advised 
him on the 32 hours as compared with the national recommendation 
for 20 hours? 

MS. BERSINGER: I think the thought is two fold. 
First of all, the federal requirements, while they start out at 
20 hours a week in federal fiscal year 1996, move to 30 hours a 
week by federal fiscal year 2000. So, the difference between 
the Governor's proposal and the federal requirement only exists 
for about a year-and-a-half . 

The second point I'd like to make is that the 32 
hours a week reflects essentially four days of work, or four 



11 

days of participation, with a fifth day, then, available for 
work search, or other activities of that nature. 

When we have talked to employers, and we have 
read information submitted by employers who have hired welfare 
recipients, one of the things that is a common thread through 
their commentary is that they want to be able to hire people 
that are job ready, that have the soft skills, so that they 
don't have to deal with issues of learning — to have them get 
up in the morning, have them get along with their co-workers, 
take instructions from their supervisors. 

Learning those soft skills, I believe, starts 
with learning the pattern of a daily work routine. I think one 
of the things that makes it easy for many of us to carry on all 
of the aspects of life outside our work environment is, we have 
learned that getting up at 5:30 or 6:00 o'clock in the morning 
is just the way it is. And you have to do your grocery shopping 
at night, and you have to arrange for your child care and have a 
back-up system for when your child is sick. 

Learning how to take care of those life's 
activities, I think, is part and parcel of participating in work 
requirements, so that during that time, you learn those same 
kinds of skills, and you get in place the pattern that allows 
you to do things more easily. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Learning how to do what you have 
to do and make adjustments to it, is what you're telling me. 

Some people can learn that, and some people have 
a great difficulty with it because they're too rigid in their 
outlook. 



12 

But let me tell you, as someone who had to do all 
of those things, you don't learn it easily. 

You know, another area that really upsets me is 
the whole system of how the county DAs enforce child support. 
For all of these counties that we have in this state, we have 
all of these different rules and regulations. 

What is the Department doing to see that we have 
more consistency across the counties? As a mother and her child 
go from one county to another, the rules and the regulations 
change, the enforcement changes. 

Is the Department doing anything to upgrade and 
make it more consistent so that people don't then have the 
incentive to float from one county to another because the child 
support collections are doing better in one area of the state 
than the other? 

Because I just think in my county, it's the 
worst. Should I be advising all of my constituents to go north 
or go somewhere else where they have better collections, like to 
Senator Lockyer's district? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's assuming facts not in 
evidence. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I'm serious. 

Because, you know, when you think of the fact 
that some of these people, they're absolutely desperate. And 
some of the other parties who are to render the financial 
support know if they go to another county, that the pressures of 
government won't be as tough on them to provide the kind of 
support that's needed. 



13 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the role of the 
Department producing uniformity? 

MS. BERSINGER: The Department works regularly and 
frequently with all of the district attorney organizations 
throughout the state to develop uniformity, and to see that the 
regulations that are promulgated by the Department are carried 
out equitably across all of the state. 

As I'm sure you're aware, one of the requirements 
that we believe is going to go a long way toward ensuring that 
kind of equity is when we are successful in implementing the 
statewide automated child support system. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you think that's going to 
come in before the Twenty-first Century? 

MS. BERSINGER: Yes, I do. 

SENATOR HUGHES: You'll have a lot of young 
people reaching age 18 before then too. 

MS. BERSINGER: I don't think there's any 
question that it is going to be a while before that is complete, 
but just last year, the State of California surpassed the one 
billion dollar mark in the amount of child support collections 
that were made statewide. That was the first time in our 
history. 

SENATOR HUGHES: But then, how do we measure up 
next to other states? Where are we? 

MS. BERSINGER: I can't answer that directly. I 
do know that we have a larger share of welfare recipient clients 
in our child support system than nonwelfare recipient clients 
than do many other states. And it has been established that it 



14 

is more difficult to collect child support payments from the 
welfare recipient population than from the nonrecipient 
population. Yet, that is where California puts its emphasis. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Well, you know, this whole 
business of changing the nomenclature of AFDC to TANF, what is 
that we've done? Are we just trying to totally confuse people? 
They have to learn all of these acronyms, and along with 
learning all the acronyms, they have to learn the new rules and 
regulations. It boggles the mind of even those people who are 
not on assistance. 

You're going to limit the aid to twelve months in 
any two-year period. How fair is it to change the name of the 
game and the rules of the game? How are these parents supposed 
to understand what it's all about? 

All of a sudden, a mother of an infant has to 
participate in work once her baby is twelve weeks old. 

This seems like really mean, tough proposals, and 
the President and the Congress have been a little more lenient, 
but we're being even meaner and tougher. 

What does this get us? What do you think is 
going to become the final result? Is it to encourage people to 
leave our state and to go elsewhere, or is it just to frustrate 
the entire population so that they become very desperate and 
they see no future for themselves? 

MS. BERSINGER: I think there's no question that 
there is a tremendous educational effort that needs to occur as 
the final decisions on welfare reform are finally arrived at. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What's going to be your effort? 



15 

How are you going to soften this blow to people who knew what 
the AFDC program was before TANF was developed? 

MS. BERSINGER: My job is going to be to work 
with the counties who are responsible for implementing the 
agreed upon program, and to help them in every way I can to make 
sure that they have the tools, not only to educate their client 
population, but to educate their own employees in this 
tremendous change that is going on right now. 

I don't disagree at all that the nature of the 
change and the magnitude of the change is huge, and it is going 
to take a tremendous amount of effort for us to get both 
employees as well as recipients to understand what those changes 
are. 

SENATOR HUGHES: There are a lot of people out 
there. On Saturday, I was in the projects in Watts, working 
with a group of people in a workshop. And I was fortunate to 
have someone there from DSS talk about licensing, and there were 
a lot of people there in earnest who wanted to provide child 
care. They didn't know the ABCs of how do you get a license, 
how do you meet all of the requirements of having a good child 
care system. 

And I think one of our reasons there was to try 
to encourage people who have never been in this business before, 
who expressed a sincere interest in becoming a licensed adequate 
child care facility, how did they go about this business? 

And some of those people were grandparents whose 
children were now adult; some of those people were not parents 
at all, but were sincerely interested in providing child care 



16 

and thought that they could adequately do it. 

But most people don't even know how to go about 
doing this. What is your Department doing? 

Your Department was helpful in terms of helping 
me get some local agency folks there to talk to them, but we had 
a room full of people who were just anxious. People from church 
communities, people who had run child care centers during the 
week were also thinking of becoming entrepreneurs and maybe 
having a weekend child care facility so that some parents could 
gain some relief on the weekends, to have some time to 
themselves, just like we give respite care in nursing home 
situations for the elderly. 

What kind of out-reach would you see that your 
Department could do in this regard to encourage people who are 
capable, ready, and anxious, and are good at heart, in 
developing this as a working operation for themselves? 

MS. BERSINGER: We would like to do two things in 
that area, Senator. One is, we want to work with current 
licensed providers, family day care providers primarily, to help 
them stay in business and know what the requirements are so that 
they are successful. 

We are also putting in place a program where we 
go out into the communities to provide training to those people 
who are interested in becoming family day care providers, so 
that they can learn the requirements and don't have to come into 
our offices or other areas away from their community in order to 
learn those. 

SENATOR HUGHES: How are you going to reach 



17 

them? How do you plan on reaching them? 

MS. BERSINGER: One of the things that has been 
started very recently is working through the resource and 
referral agencies that are located in the communities/ and 
asking them to set up groups that are interested in talking 
about, learning about child care, whether it is at a school/ or 
in a church/ or in a local community center. 

We are sending staff out there to train them, to 
train them in bilingual/ in their native language if that is 
necessary. So, that we take the education to them rather than 
requiring them to come to us. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I hope you reach them, because 
it's really a difficult problem. 

There was a gentleman there who was retired, a 
retiree. I guess he was in his early 60s. He was taking care 
of three children. 

He's not married. He's single gentleman. The 
children were ages five, eight/ and ten. He was an uncle, and 
he said that they're driving him up the wall. 

And he loves these children. He wants to take 
care of them, but he heard that we were having this workshop on 
child care, and he came there to get some help. He said he 
cannot morally see these children not taken care of, and yet, 
still, he is a relative, but he feels inadequate in terms of 
taking care of them. 

What kind of out-reach do you plan on having to 
help people like this? 

This is a responsible relative. A lot of 



18 

relatives close their doors, and they don't want to be 
responsible. 

Are you working with housing projects? Because 
there was another lady there from the Jordan Downs housing 
project. And she was talking about the programs that they had, 
and the things that they hoped to do. 

So, you know, are you going to be reach out there 
in the community? 

MS. BERSINGER: We are certainly going to do that 
from the base of our licensing operation. 

We'll also work very closely with the resource 
and referral agencies that are funded through the Department of 
Education, who also will be training — will be providing 
training and out-reach to give the information about what it 
takes to become a licensed provider to the people that they're 
aware of as well. 

SENATOR HUGHES: People in my community are lucky 
to find any kind of provider, licensed or unlicensed. 

Let me tell you, poor folks don't have the luxury 
of doing the investigations to find out whether these people are 
licensed or not licensed. All they care about, if you're 
willing, if you appear to be able, and they think you can 
convince them that you're going to care for their children and 
love them as much as they love their own children. 

MS. BERSINGER: In my view, the important thing 
is that people be able to make an informed decision about the 
kind of care that they select. And that if they want to find 
licensed care, that they know how to go about doing that. And 



19 

if they don't want to use licensed care, that they do that, but 
in a way so that they can evaluate the kind of exempt care that 
they're seeking. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I fully realize these people are 
under pressure time-wise. Under pressure to find someone 
somewhere that they hope will take adequate care of their 
children. And it is not easy. 

People might have a nice facility that looks 
really good to you. And if your children are very small, like 
these children are going to be, they're not able to talk and 
articulate to you how people are going to treat them. You're 
just going to take a gamble and a chance because you'll see a 
facility that looks like it's okay, and you're going to just 
have to place your child there because your time is up. 

I hope that you have not only more out-reach, but 
you have more sensitivity. 

You ever been a single parent? 

MS. BERSINGER: No, I have not, Senator. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I have. It is scary. It is 
really a scary situation when you have to ask some total 
stranger, or some person that seems to be a friendly neighbor, 
to help you out. It is really, really scary. 

And so, I think you have to be a lot more 
compassionate rather than methodical in reaching these 
deadlines. And there has to be more for flexability when you 
just say to people: go place your child somewhere; you must go 
to work now. 

So, if you hear no one else say it, I'm saying it 



20 

to you. It is like taking your most precious possession and 
putting it on the freeway and saying, get hit if you want to. 

I really get concerned about this. 

MS. BERSINGER: I certainly understand your point 
of view. 

And I think that those kinds of decisions are the 
kind of decisions that working mothers face today in finding 
child care for their child. And there will be more of them. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Hughes, I think you 
asked some very good questions. 

I guess in a general way, to help clarify my 
responsibilities related to many of those issues, I pose this 
question. 

What proportion of your time would you estimate 
is mostly administrative rather than policy making? 

MS. BERSINGER: Most of my time is 
administrative. My job is to figure out how to get things 
implemented. 

While I don't mean to say I don't participate in 
some of the policy discussion, that is not the large part of my 
job. 

My job is to find ways to get things done. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Were you involved in 
administrative matters in the Department of Motor Vehicles? 

MS. BERSINGER: Yes, I functioned primarily as 
the chief operating officer there. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Can you help us understand 
about the computer SNAFUs there that occurred during that time? 



21 

MS. BERSINGER: Well, the computer systems of the 
Department of Motor Vehicles are among the largest in the world. 
They are legacy systems, and the technology of the mid-80s 
suggested that had way you dealt with legacy systems was, you 
looked for some way to migrate them to a client-based system, 
probably using a relational data base, which was a totally 
different structure than what the department had had, still has 
today. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's organized now in what way 
that's different? 

MS. BERSINGER: It's two flat files. There's a 
driver's license file, and there is a vehicle file. Each of 
them having — there's probably 26 million vehicles active, and 
another ten or twelve million inactive, and probably 23 or 24 
million drivers. Huge data bases with tremendous amounts of 
date about each person or vehicle on them. 

One of the problems, and it's my personal 
opinion, one of the problems that state government has is in 
terms of implementing any of its information technology 
projects. As we all know, it takes a very long time between the 
time you start and the time you are ready to implement your 
product. You are probably implementing something that is 
obsolete, and that presumes that you have successfully gotten 
through the development phase. 

The thing that state government, I think, has not 
done a good job at, and something, frankly, that while I was at 
the Department of Motor of Vehicles I tried to get in place, and 
I am working also with the Department of Social Services on, is 



22 

to develop the project management skills in state managers that 
allows us to take advantage of some of the project management 
techniques that are now being used by major companies throughout 
the world in managing there IT projects. 

I'm not suggesting that manager become IT 
professionals. I cannot; perhaps others can, but I cannot. 

But I can learn to use some of the project 
management tools that are going to give me a way of assessing 
whether this technology project is on budget, is on time, and 
whether there is a problem that has developed that threatens the 
very continuation of that project. 

Project management training is something that I 
put in place before I left the Department of Mother Vehicles, 
and I am in the process of putting that in place at DSS. 

But these are not easy tasks. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How do you train them? What 
happens? Where do they go? 

MS. BERSINGER: There are a couple of very good 
sessions on project management. Most of them are designed for 
the hands-on project manager. Many of them use automated tools 
to develop the level of detail that's needed to manage 
projects . 

Microsoft Project is a tool that a lot of people 
use that can be used at a high level for executives to manage 
milestones, and to see if projects are on target, and have 
reached the milestones, and whether issues have come out of 
that. And then, at much lower levels, it can go into any amount 
of detail you want about whether the various pieces are being 



23 

done in a proper sequence. 

I'm also in the process right now of developing a 
session for what we are calling project sponsors. As you are 
no doubt aware, at the Department of Social Services, project 
management for the major information technology projects is done 
by the Health and Welfare Data Center, something that I, 
frankly, applaud. 

But that does not relieve the Department of 
Social Services from working very closely with both the Health 
and Welfare Data Center as well as the vendor, making sure that 
the project meets the objectives that programatically we have. 
So, we are working on developing some training that will focus 
specifically on that kind of knowledge and the responsibilities 
needed for that kind of function. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there other questions from 
Members? 

Anyone care that's here to comment. 

Senator Hughes, anything further? 

SENATOR HUGHES: You know, I'm not ready to vote 
yet because you answered my questions adequately, but I've seen 
no simpatico from you. 

I want to hear how you're really going to help to 
solve these problems when a mother really wants to go to work, 
but is worried about where she's going to adequately place her 
child and not be worried. 

Several other things come to my mind that I can't 
articulate right now, but it's very hurtful when I even think 
about the desperation. 



24 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator, the question I pose 
is, do you want to shoot the messenger? 

SENATOR HUGHES: No, I don't want to shoot the 
messenger . 

I want a commitment from the messenger that she's 
going to take the message. That's what I want. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The problem we have is that, 
if I understand the job correctly, that it is principally 
administrative. That the policies that you've raised, which are 
very valid matters to have us debate and discuss, may only in 
remote ways bear on her job responsibilities. 

Maybe if the Department Director, maybe — 
although I think these, frankly, come from even further up than 
that -- were before us, maybe. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Well, how do you think your 
Department will be leaning in reference to the points that I 
thought of? How do you think you as an administrator can 
influence the attitude of your Department? Or can you, or will 
you? Are you committed to? 

MS. BERSINGER: Senator, sometime ago when I was 
in the Department, and I was in Community Care Licensing for 
five years, I spent time in hundreds of day care centers and 
family day care homes, talking to providers, talking to parents 
that used good facilities and parents that used inadequate 
facilities . 

All I can tell you is, I understand the quandary 
of a parent having to place their child in day care. I have not 
had to make that choice because I don't have a child to put in 



25 

day care, but I appreciate, from talking to hundreds of parents 
about the dilemmas that they have, as you have described here, 
about putting their child in day care. 

But the fact of the matter is that the majority 
of parents today, both of them work. And they do have to find 
some kind of child care for their children. 

My commitment is to work vigorously to make sure 
that child care choices are available. And that when those 
child care choices are licensed choices, since licensing is part 
of the purview of my Department, is to make sure that they 
adhere to the standards that we have set out. 

But I don't mean to seem callous to that issue. 
I'm not callous to that issue at all. I know it is a tremendous 
one as we move forward in that arena. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: In that connection, having had 
my office work with you on numerous occasions when there was an 
Alameda County child care licensing problem, I appreciate your 
diligent efforts to try to work through those matters. 

I don't know if anyone was ever totally satisfied 
with the outcomes, but you certainly gave them your attention 
and worked at it hard. 

MS. BERSINGER: I appreciate that, Senator. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Could you explain to me a little 
more about what happened in that case? I don't mean to be 
difficult, but I want to find out what you're thanking her for. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There were lots of different 
complaints, and they would be the range of a provider that 
thought they were unfairly disciplined, to a parent or someone 



26 

else that thought the discipline was too lax. It would be a 
whole range of issues, or speed of licensing, or payments. Just 
a lot of administrative matters that we seem to be, on occasion, 
unable to work through locally. 

So, we would go to the boss, and often got things 
resolved in at least what seemed to be the best possible 
outcome. 

SENATOR HUGHES: How do you get along with Eloise 
Anderson? She has been a single parent and you have not. 

She has told me that you were hand-picked by 
her . 

Why do you think she hand-picked you? What do 
you think you had that you could give her in terms of support 
for the agency? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Somebody that knew what they 
were doing. I'll offer that. 

SENATOR HUGHES: That's with motor vehicle 
licensing. I mean in this regard. 

I really want to know, because then you tell me a 
little bit about why you think you are good for this agency or 
not good for this agency. 

MS. BERSINGER: I think there are probably three 
reasons that Eloise asked me to take this position. 

One is, I have a lot of experience in state 
government. And because of that, I can help her accomplish the 
objectives that she has. 

I have ten years of experience in the Department 
much Social Services. I'll acknowledge that.it is somewhat 



27 

dated, but certainly the program areas that I managed during 
that ten-year period are the same program areas that are there 
today. 

And I think the third thing is that I had, 
frankly, never met Eloise until we had started talking about 
this position. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Did she seek you out or you 
sought her out? 

MS. BERSINGER: She called me. 

SENATOR HUGHES: How were you recommended? 

MS. BERSINGER: I don't know that. I know that 
Eloise called me one afternoon and told me that she was 
interested in a chief deputy, and she wondered if I would be 
interested in talking with her about that. 

That was the beginning of a relatively long 
discussion with her at various times and places, the conclusion 
of which is that she believed and I believed that we could work 
well together. 

And I think over the past seven or eight months, 
that has proved very much to be the case. 

SENATOR BRULTE: You worked for the state how 
many years? 

MS. BERSINGER: For 2 8 years, Senator. 

SENATOR BRULTE: How many governors have you 
worked under? 

MS. BERSINGER: Well, this is the first Governor 
that I've worked under in a gubernatorial appointed position. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Who was Governor when you came 



28 

to work for the state. 

MS. BERSINGER: Mr. Reagan. 

SENATOR BRULTE: I'm not trying to test your 
lesson of history. I was in junior high school at the time. 

MS. BERSINGER: I'm trying not to point that out. 
Senator . 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR BRULTE: Governor Reagan? 

MS. BERSINGER: Yes. 

SENATOR BRULTE: And you served in state 
government when Governor Brown was in? 

MS. BERSINGER: Yes, Jerry Brown. 
[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There was another before your 
time . 

SENATOR BRULTE: And you served in how many 
different agencies? 

MS. BERSINGER: I have worked in a half dozen 
different departments. 

SENATOR BRULTE: What are those six departments? 

MS. BERSINGER: I have worked in the Department 
of Health. I have worked in the Department of Social Services. 
I've worked in the Department of Personnel Administration. I've 
worked in the Department of Motor Vehicles. I'm worked in the 
Department of EDD, what is now EDD. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If you forget any of them, 
you're really in trouble now. 

MS. BERSINGER: There's one other I worked for, 



29 

the Department of Benefit Payments, and probably very few of you 
ever remember that. It was a short-lived department. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Thank you. 

SENATOR LEWIS: I'd like to move confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion to that 
effect. 

Any final questions or comments. 

The motion to confirm is before us. Call the 
roll/ if you will, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 
Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. Good luck. 

[Thereupon. This portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing was 

terminated at approximately 2:57 P.M.] 
— 00O00 — 



30 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

ft IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 

I ! - 

' ; day of A ^j \~S , 1997. 



^EVELYN J. MIZAK "° 

——Shorthand Reporter 



318-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.25 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 318-R when ordering.